HomeMy WebLinkAbout030022 ORD - 12/10/2013AN ORDINANCE
ADOPTING MOBILITYCC, AN ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE
CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI ( "THE CITY "), BY MERGING AND MODIFYING THE
EXISTING CORPUS CHRISTI URBAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN AND THE
CORPUS CHRISTI ADA MASTER PLAN, FOR THE CITY AND ITS
EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION BY ESTABLISHING A UNIFIED
TRANSPORTATION PLAN CONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST;
REPEALING THE EXISTING CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI URBAN
TRANSPORTATION PLAN, ADPOTED BY ORDINANCE #028504, MARCH 9, 2010;
REPEALING CONFLICTING ORDINANCES; AMENDING CONFLICTING
PROVISIONS OF THE CITY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERANCE; AND PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has forwarded to the City Council its report and
recommendation regarding MobilltyCC, an element of the Comprehensive Plan of the
City of Corpus Christi;
WHEREAS, with proper notice to the public, public hearings were held on
Wednesday, October 23, 2013, during a meeting of the Planning Commission, and on
Tuesday, November 19, 2013, during a meeting of the City Council, during which all
interested persons were allowed to appear and be heard; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that this amendment would best serve the
public health, necessity, convenience and general welfare of the City of Corpus Christi
and Its citizens.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CORPUS CHRISTI TEXAS:
SECTION 1. A unified transportation plan entitled MobilityCC, resulting from a process
of merger and modification of the Corpus Christi Urban Transportation Plan and ADA
Master Plan, is adopted as an element of the comprehensive plan in the form
incorporated and attached as Exhibit A.
SECTION 2. The Corpus Christi Urban Transportation Plan comprised of the following
listed ordinances is repealed and replaced in its entirety by MobilityCC.
Ordinance No. 028504 passed by the City Council on March 9, 2010 as
amended by Ordinance Nos. 029618, 029619, 029506, 029507, and 029469.
SECTION 3. The Corpus Christi ADA Master Plan comprised of the following listed
ordinance is repealed and replaced in its entirety by the MobilityCC.
Ordinance No. 029691 passed by the City Council on December 11, 2012.
INDEXED
SECTION 4. To the extent that the amendment made by this ordinance represents a
deviation from the Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive Plan is amended to
conform to the amendment made by this ordinance.
SECTION 5. Any ordinance or part of any ordinance in conflict with this ordinance is
expressly repealed by this ordinance.
SECTION 6. A copy of MobilityCC as herein adopted by this ordinance and made a
public record shall be on file in the office of the City Secretary.
SECTION 7. The City Council intends that every section, paragraph, subdivision,
clause, phrase, word, or provision of this ordinance be given full force and effect for its
purpose. Therefore, if any section, paragraph, subdivision, clause, phrase, word, or
provision of this ordinance shall be held invalid or unconstitutional by final judgment of a
court of competent jurisdiction, it shall not affect any other section, paragraph,
subdivision, clause, phrase, word, or provision of this ordinance.
SECTION 8. Publication shall be made by in the City's official publication as required by
the City's Charter.
The foregoing ordinance was read for the first time and passed to its second reading on
this the 19th day of November , 2013 , by the following vote:
Nelda Martinez
Kelley Allen
Rudy Garza
Priscilla Leal
David Loeb
Chad Magill
Colleen McIntyre
Lillian Riojas
Mark Scott
The foregoing ordinance was read for the second time and passed finally on
this the 10th day of December 2013 , by the following vote:
Nelda Martinez LA 1 Chad Magill
Kelley Allen alt Colleen McIntyre
Rudy Garza 'lt + Lillian Riojas
Priscilla Leal ON Mark Scott
David Loeb C /
4
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 10th day of December , 2013
ATTEST:
Armando Chapa Nelda Martinez
City Secretary Mayor
T
1
C111111111,
Octr- Ih - r `" 1 3
'L lin & Environmental
a y.
111,0 47/1? � V � .,. _ !•" I�" 9 .. w� - ";.�
,.. „..-I!. till
Parks & Recir atoll
Department
MobilityCC
PLAN - DESIGN- OPERATE- MAINTAIN
STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK FOR MOBILITY IN THE
CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI
Project Team
Elena J. Buentello, Planning Technician
City of Corpus Christi
Planning Department
Andrew K. Dimas, City Planner
City of Corpus Christi
Planning Department
Jeffrey Pollack, Project Manager
HDR Engineering, Inc.
4
and ail iii di.g.Mrd ,Ni7
11 j 777ldd01, SAM 71 umuu lir a''`,�m ,m=
How To Use This Document
MobilityCC is the transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan
and is intended to be used in combination with other elerients, including
those of both current adoption and those that a adopted or
revised in the future. Of specific importance is the 'u'se of MobilifCC in
coordination with plans for future land use and area development plans.
MobilityCC provides the framework (pr the interrelated transportation
issues of plan, design, operate nd maintain. As such,. each
element below should be :considered as a part of a larger system.
The synopses beI w describe the highlights of MobilityCC
chapters and their-. ntents. As part of "hoW to use this document ",
the reader may; u e these synopses as a .quick reference to
locate inforrna on easily withi the ,MobilityCC docurnent.
he IntroduCtion ctiQn provides the goals, pplicips,,„ and objectives of
obilityCC. These guiding principles establish the emp asis on providing
`balanced transportation options for all methods of h w People move.
options P; p
The Plan! section houses all transportation related plans, includin
the City /s -Thoroughfare Plan,' 'Trails Master Plan, Americans
witti CtihabiJities� Act (ADA): Master Pies' (formerly the ADA
sition arr)� plans for the installation. `.of roundabouts and road
diets at select locations.,. and plans for specific street corridors.
The Design section is the toolbox of design features, techniques,
and; treatments recOmrrnendisd for se in f';' ity projects.
The Operate & Maintenanceesectiondescribesthepreventativemaintenance
of streets, the need for pavement management, the methodology for the
assessmentof streets, and the use ofthis assessment for street prioritization.
The Performance Measures section' identifies specific items for
continual evaluation. The items will be used not only to determine
progress, but also the way to identify additional items for study.
The : thiplementation section is the list of tasks to be accomplished. These
tasks, ate sourced not only from the plans themselves, but also
additionat'infrmation thatis neededdthingthe phasesofconstruction.
The AppefndLx is the home•of ad'ditiortal information such as maps,
recommended process irr proven eats,, and background information.
h
111111 1uuuuum�
�uuu " " " " "' uuuuuuuuuuu
111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111I
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiimmm1lllllllllllldllldh
Imm11111111111111111111111111111111111111111i 11111�illi�
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
telt
tyCC redefines what a
is intended to do, what
ility goals the City is going to
et and how the community will
111. cl its transportation money."
000000000000000000000
Table of Contents
III' t U C IIII 1
Why MobilityCC?
Guiding Principles
Policies and Objectives
Authority
Plan Amendment Process
11
18
20
32
33
'°' a VIII " ""I 3J
t
Urban Transportation Plan 37
ADA Master Plan 47
HikeBikeCC 62
Mobility Concepts 93
es lull g QP°"'VI
Introduction
Design Techniques / Treatments
Design Standards
,, 0 e rate t e n ,' VI a Ill rata III I10
Introduction
Preventative Maintenance
Pavement Management
Goals for Street Prioritization
Conclusion
nn p �V e II� III ��li�,;; III ta (3 i1 I AA Wx,
1) 3 1 IIII�i:
Urban Transportation Map
Example of Alternative Street Prioritization
MobilityCC Project Checklist
Roundabout Feasibility
Road Diet Feasibility Study
Record of Change
List of Staff /Stakeholder Meetings
3 °°Ptf
133
133
145
1 49
151
152
152
153
157
E„3
171
173
176
178
180
182
183
I
Iji
„1 1'1'1'1111111
1011„„ku
floi"
FJ) ,1111. )
out
II�
011 i
C:�ltt4ti
The City's first Integrated Community Sustainability Plan (ICSP) received resounding
support from City Council in September of 2011, after which City leadership directed
Planning Department staff to take the lead on integrating the ICSP into the City's
Comprehensive Plan. As part of that effort, Planning staff used the strategic, place -
based Mobility Concepts that were included in the ICSP as the basis for restructuring
existing plans, procedures, and processes related to the City's transportation systems.
The expanded transportation planning framework— MobilityCC— consolidates
existing plans and incorporates new ones, design standards,, and refines the process
by which facility maintenance and expansion are prioritized. MobilityCC also
calls for development of mobility- specific performance measures to evaluate the
implementation of the expanded framework. While previous plans and studies have
evaluated the relationships between the different parts of the City's transportation
system —the Urban Transportation Plan incorporated a bicycle and pedestrian
component in 2005; The 2012 Parks and Recreation Master Plan outlined the need to
plan holistically and consider multiple modes of transportation — MobilityCC represents
the first attempt to integrate these pieces into a single cohesive strategy for planning,
designing, operating, and maintaining the City's multi -modal transportation system.
Plan- Design - Operate- Maintain (PDOM)
Excluding construction, the typical phases of mobility projects are 1- Planning, 2- Design,
3- Operations, and 4- Maintenance. Increased integration of the various City departments
facilitates collaboration among planners, engineers and street operations, resulting in
a more efficient and sustainable mobility network. This integration also allows project
teams to communicate more efficiently and coordinate more effectively as they execute
the PDOM process, allowing the departments that are directly responsible for upkeep of
mobility facilities to be involved in the planning and design of those facilities. The City's
11
a
The City's mobility wer
sho ld be' designed ar d
constructed with o p erati n
pe formance rather an
in -dal cost in mind,
mobility network should be designed and constructed with operating performance rather
than initial cost in mind. Integration of PDOM into a single document represents a significant
move for the City of Corpus Christi toward life cycle consideration of the mobility network.
MobilityCC creates the framework for a comprehensive, integrated, multi -modal
transportation network for the City of Corpus Christi. We strive to create a system that
balances access, mobility, health and safety needs of motorists, transit users, bicyclists,
and pedestrians of all ages and abilities, including users of wheelchairs and mobility
aides. By integrating planning, design, construction, management, and maintenance of
the mobility network we hope to foster a cohesive network that will be a cornerstone of
economic development in the City. The network also provides the means to shape our
economy through the movement of goods, the location of commerce, and the potential
growth of the City. MobilityCC redefines what a street is intended to do, what mobility
goals the City is going to meet, and how the community will spend its transportation money.
3110001-0.000,00 0100,0010003130 013
i�
FP
''''','1'1'11111111111111111111111 llli9111P
1111111 11!.„
1
f1
r
uuu� u 1
�N
;r2,J
irk
L, o d
Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block
Gran (EECBG)
In April of 2010, the City of Corpus Christi received $2.7M in direct allocation Energy
Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) funds from the Department of Energy
(DOE) as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The largest of the nine
projects funded by the EECBG grantwas the creation ofan Integrated Community Energy
Efficiency /Sustainability Plan and Implementation Program (ICSP). One critical part of
the planning effort was consideration of strategies to enhance the efficiency with which
people and goods move within the community. Sustainable mobility solutions provide
context - sensitive, multi -modal transportation choices that support economic growth
and social equity while protecting natural resources and promoting public health and
safety. Acommunity can make significant progress toward achieving these objectives by
designing and building streets that accommodate the needs of all users no matter their
age or ability, and allow for choice in mode of travel. Using key roadways and corridors
associated with the Destination Nodes, as identified in the ICSP, as examples, specific
recommendations were made as to how various street concepts might be applied. The
ICSP deliverables received very strong support from City Council in September 2011.
5.
1/;» IA if f 6
� ff rr � rfr
'�1 � , I f �irrl l'i�i�rr% r7. Gt
City Street Improvement Plan
Maintenance, CIP Arterial & Collector
The deteriorating condition of the City's streets network ultimately translates into real
costs for residents in the form of increased vehicle maintenance, increased commute
times, and diminished access to goods and services, all of which impacts individuals'
quality of life and thus the economic viability of the community overall. Over roughly the
last 30 years, Street Department funding has not increased enough to cover increasing
costs to properly maintain the City's growing street system. Until the adoption of the
street user fee in 2013, there has been no dedicated funding source for street repairs and
maintenance. Overall funding for street maintenance fell as a result of budget pressures
brought on by the economic downturn in the 1980s. Over the same 30 year period,
new street miles continued to outpace population growth. Street maintenance has been
deferred to the point that 50% of our City Streets are considered to be in "Fair to Good"
condition and 50% are considered to be in "Poor" condition. Street condition assessments
, which continue to change, estimated a one -time initial cost of $1.25 Billion to improve
all streets to a "good" condition at an annual cost of $88 Million (20 -year life cycle
projection) to maintain the streets in "good" condition after the initial repair is complete.
In March of 2010, City staff gave a presentation to City Council regarding the
status of street conditions in response to the Council's goal of improving the overall
condition of City streets by developing a street plan. In August of 2010, City Council
passed a motion directing City staff to create a resolution establishing a five member
ad hoc committee to be appointed by the Mayor. The committee would provide
recommendations for a permanent mechanism for funding street maintenance.
The Committee made its final recommendations in 2012. The primary recommendations
included: adoption of a street user fee and re- examine existing dedicated sales tax
uses. The secondary recommendations included adopting of a 30 -year street design
standard, adopting a street funding allocation plan, identifying funding sources
for drainage and utilities, and adopting policies to encourage infill development.
At City Council's direction, City staff has developed a funding mechanism and a Street
Preventive Maintenance Program (SPMP) to address maintenance of good City streets
(not reconstruction).
The Street Maintenance Fee will raise an additional $15 million dollars per year to be used
solely for the SPMP. Additionally, a 30 -year street design standard has been developed
by City staff and approved by City Council in early 2013.
t fd.' li �r wow /[
f(f l0 tr, 11
Sustainable mobility solutions provide
context - sensitive, multi -modal
transportation choices that support
economic growth and social equity
while protecting natural resources
and promoting public health and
safety. A community can make
significant progress toward achieving
the following mobility objectives by
designing and building streets that
allow for choice in mode of travel and
accommodate the needs of all users,
regardless of age or ability.
Livability
Develop a fully- integrated, multi -modal
mobility system that enhances the
efficiency with which people move within
the community.
Economic Vitality
Enhance the economic vitality of our
region by enhancing the efficiency with
which people access jobs, goods, and
services within the region and with which
goods move into and out of the region.
Health and Safety
Improve the health of our residents by
developing a mobility system that fosters
non - vehicular travel; develop a
transportation system that assures
efficient emergency access and
emergency evacuation.
Social Equity
Pursue a mobility system that serves the
entire community, regardless of geographic
or socioeconomic position; ensure
that planning and implementation
of transportation projects does not
disproportionately impact a particular
segment of the community.
Access and Mobility
Improve access to key destinations and
facilitate the movement of people and goods
throughout the region in a safe, affordable,
efficient, and convenient manner.
Mobility and Land Use
Ensure that land -use patterns and decisions
encourage walking, bicycling, and public
transportation use and make these
transportation options safe and convenient
choices.
Travel Choices
Provide diverse, affordable, convenient,
and safe travel choices.
Schools /Public Facilities
Increase children's physical activity to
benefit their short- and long -term health
and improve their abilities to learn.
Parks /Recreation
Increase use of parks and open space for
physical activity and encourage residents
to access parks by walking, bicycling, or
public transportation.
Air Quality
Reduce the vehicular contribution to
airborne emission so as to protect the
City's Environmental Protection Agency air
quality attainment status by enhancing the
mode share of transit and non - vehicular
alternatives.
Environmental Quality
Employ full cost environmental accounting
to transportation decisions; continually
seek to enhance system efficiency so as
to minimize resource consumption and
impacts to natural systems.
Funding and Revenue
Develop appropriate, innovative, equitable,
and stable funding sources; regularly
evaluate system operations and explore
cost - reduction measures.
i ni it /L%
rr �1 llI//Il/a 0" rr
6,,I 60 (0: 1 fi, 1 mA% ,
In planning, designing and
constructing streets that balance
transportation options.
Ensure that the ADA Master Plan
is included in prioritization of
infrastructure improvements.
Ensure that sidewalks, crosswalks,
public transportation stops and
facilities, and other aspects of
the transportation right -of -way
are compliant with the Americans
with Disabilities Act and meet the
needs of people with different types
of disabilities, including mobility
impairments, vision impairments,
hearing impairments, and others.
Include infrastructure that promotes a
safe means of travel for all users long
the right -of -way, such as sidewalks,
shared -use paths, bicycle lanes, and
paved shoulders.
Prioritize incorporation of street design
features and techniques that promote
safe and comfortable travel by
pedestrians, bicyclists, and public
transportation riders, such as
roundabouts, road diets, high street
connectivity, and physical buffers and
separations between vehicular
traffic and other users.
Ensure use of additional features that
improve the comfort and safety of
users.
o Provide pedestrian- oriented signs,
pedestrian -scale lighting, benches
and other street fumiture, bicycle
parking facilities, and comfortable
and attractive public transportation
stops and facilities.
o Encourage street trees, landscaping,
and planting strips, including native
plants and xeriscaping techniques
where possible, in order to buffer
traffic noise and protect and shade
pedestrians and bicyclists.
o Reduce surface water runoff by
reducing the amount of impervious
surfaces in the Right -of -Way.
11"i, ( 1,1
In all street projects, include
infrastructure that improves
transportation options for
pedestrians,bicyclists, and public
transportation riders of all ages and
abilities.
Ensure that infrastructure is
included in planning, design,
approval, construction, operations,
and maintenance phases of street
projects.
Incorporate infrastructure into
all construction, reconstruction,
retrofit, maintenance, alteration,
and repair of streets, bridges, and
other portions of the transportation
network.
Incorporate multi -modal
improvements into pavement
resurfacing, restriping, and
signalization operations where the
safety and convenience of users
can be improved within the scope of
work.
Develop systems to implement
and monitor incorporation of
infrastructure into construction and
reconstruction of private streets.
Allow exclusion of infrastructure
from street projects only upon
review by the Bicycle and Pedestrian
Subcommittee and approval
by the Transportation Advisory
Committee and the City Engineer
or their designee and only where
documentation and supporting data
indicate one of the following bases
for the exemption: (a) use by non -
motorized users is prohibited by law;
(b) the cost would be excessively
is proportionate to the need or
probably future use over the long
term; (c) there is an absence of
current and future need; or (d)
inclusion of infrastructure that would
be unreasonable or inappropriate in
light of the scope of the project.
Develop policies and tools to
improve the City's street practices to
balance the transportation options.
Develop.... a pedestrian crossings
policy, addressing matters such
as where to place crosswalks and
when to use enhanced crossing
treatments.
Develop policies to improve the
safety of crossing and travel in the
vicinity of schools and parks.
Consider developing a
transportation demand
management model /commuter
benefits ordinance to encourage
residents and employees to walk,
bicycle, use public transportation,
or carpool.
Develop a checklist for the City of
Corpus Christi's development and
redevelopment projects to ensure
the inclusion of infrastructure
providing for safe travel for all users
and enhance project outcomes and
community impact.
Encourage transit - oriented
development that provides public
transportation in close proximity
to employment, housing, schools,
retailers, and other services and
amenities.
Create an asset management
criteria in conjunction eith street
improvements ensure that existing
transportation funds are available
for infrastructure that balances
transportation options.
Identify additional funding streams
and implementation strategies to
retrofit existing streets to include
infrastructure that balances
transportation options.
1i ° :'( :Ull0 I0E0000 a 7)1hii 0 Yll0i(r,5
As necessary, restructure and revise
the zoning and subdivision codes and
other plans, laws, procedures, rules,
regulations, guidelines, programs,
templates, and design manuals,
including the Unified Development
Code (i.e. Platting Requirements),
in order to integrate, accommodate,
and balance the needs of all users
in all street projects on public and
private streets.
Develop or revise street and trail
standards, as well as, street and
trail design manuals, including
cross - section templates and design
treatment details, to ensure that
standards support and do not impede
complete streets; coordinate with
related policy documents including
the trails master plan, ADA master
plan, and the Urban Transportation
Plan.
Assess current requirements with
regard to road widths and turning
radii in order to determine the
narrowest vehicle lane width and
tightest corner radii that safely
balance other needs; adjust design
guidelines and templates to reflect
ideal widths and radii.
Encourage making training available
to planning, public works personnel,
and consulting firmsontheimportance
of balancing transportation options
and implementation and integration
of multi -modal infrastructure and
techniques.
IN r l r 0 l,)1 ! C ,r ! ,i44
Encourage coordination among
agencies and departments to
develop joint prioritization, capital
planning, capital programming,
and implementation of street
improvement projects and
programs.
Encourage targeted outreach and
public participation in community
decisions concerning street design
and use.
Consider use of a multi -modal
level -of- service assessment criteria
versus an automobile level of service
as a dominant determinant with.
Collect baseline data and regularly
gather follow -up data in order
to assess impact of policies.
• Collect data regarding safety,
functionality, and actual use by
each category of users of the
neighborhoods and areas within
the City of Corpus Christi.
• Track public transportation
ridership numbers.
• Track bicycle and pedestrian
data.
• Track performance standards
and goals.
• Track other performance
measures such as the number
of new curb ramps and new
street trees or plantings.
• Encourage major employers
to monitor how employees
commute to work.
Ii
0000 0000100001100000o001111
ry
rrY
23
Develop a long -term priortization
plan for the bicycle and pedestrian
network that meets the needs
of users, including pedestrians,
bicyclists, public transportation
riders and people of all ages
and abilities including children,
youth, families, older adults, and
individuals with disabilities.
Conduct a demand analysis for
each category of user, mapping
locations that are already oriented
to each mode of travel and type of
user and those for which there is a
latent demand.
For each category of user, map out
a preferred transportation network
with routes that will enable safe,
interconnected, direct, continuous,
and efficient travel from each major
origination area to each major
destination area.
Encourage public participation in
community decisions concerning
the demand analysis, preferred
route network, and street design
and use to ensure that such
decisions (a) result in streets
that meet the needs of all users
and (b) are responsive to needs
of individuals and groups that
traditionally have not participated
in public infrastructure, design.
Include pedestrians, bicyclists,
individuals with disabilities, children
and youth, families, older adults,
public transportation riders, low-
income communities, of color,
other distinct social groups, and
their advocates. Establish ongoing
advisory committees and public
feedback mechanisms.
Identify and prioritize necessary
changes in order to implement
the preferred network; prioritize
neighborhoods with the greatest
need and projects that significantly
alleviate economic, social, racial or
ethnic inequities.
Ensure that the networks provide
ready access to health sources of
nutrition.
Explore the use of nonstandard
locations and connection for
bicycle, pedestrian, and public
transportation facilities, such
as easements, restored stream
corridors, and railroad rights -of-
way.
The Citywide Hike and Bike trail
map can be viewed at:
http://www.cctexas.com/
government/planning-&-
environment/index
"�'lj� (,)1'1 le?: 8
Evaluate the timeline and funding
of plan.
Assess the degree to which
implementation of the plan can
be coordinated with planned
reconstruction of streets,
development projects, utility
projects, and other existing funding
streams.
Develop funding strategies for
addressing additional needs;
actively pursue funding from state,
federal, and other sources.
Explore imposing development
impact fees and dedication
requirements on new development
to create paths and other street
infrastructure that balances
transportation options.
In collaboration with the Metropolitan
Planning Organization and the
Regional Transit Authority, integrate
bicycle, pedestrian, and public
transportation facility planning into
regional and local transportation
planning programs and agencies
to encourage connectivity between
jurisdictions.
Develop programs to encourage
bicycle use, such as enacting
indoor bicycle- parking policies to
encourage bicycle commuting or
testing innovative bicycle facility
design.
0
Brawner Parkway
Hike8IkeCC
5 0 II [00 a 00.0 0000 8 008) 5.6 r, T u 00 2
9 9 z
. '/14411:':1' •
47:
Kpb
,44161,1pENE,„„,11,
Identify physical improvements that
would make bicycle and pedestrian
travel safer along current major
bicycling and walking routes and the
proposed future network, prioritizing
routes to and from schools.
Identify safety improvements to
pedestrian and bicycle routes used
to access public transportation stops.
Collaborate with the Regional Transit
Authority to relocate stops where
advisable.
Identify intersections and other
locations where collisions have
occurred or that present safety
challenges for pedestrians, bicyclists,
or other users. Consider gathering
additional data through methods
such as walkability / bikeability audits,
analyze data, and develop solutions
to safety issues.
Prioritize modifications to the
identified locations, identify funding
streams, and implementation
strategies. Including which features
can be construction as a part of route
street projects.
Collaborate with schools, senior
centers, advocacy groups, and
public safety departments to
provide community education
about safe travel for pedestrians,
bicyclists, and other users.
Prevent crime through
environmental design strategies,
such as landscaping and lighting,
to increase safety for pedestrians,
bicyclists and, other users.
As necessary, public safety
departments should engage in
additional enforcement actions in
strate s is locations.
IDDDD
1,!4o, )t,)0011:0111111111111,11111111011,117
117 11
I 1101
C)D, ■1,1:1(7; 7"1(,),.!)V 2 6
,..
Ai
f I
k T r '1 nidlIP
4ilf,ii„111111q, , ill
Partner with the Regional Transit
Authority to enhance and expand
public transportation services and
infrastructure throughout the City of
Corpus Christi and the surrounding
region. Encourage the development
of a public transportation system
that increases personal mobility and
travel choices, conserves energy
resources, preserves air quality, and
fosters economic growth.
Work in conjunction with the
Regional Transit Authority to
provide destinations and activities
that can be reached by public
transportation and are of interest
to public transportation- dependent
populations, including youth, older
adults, and people with disabilities.
Collaborate with the Regional Transit
Authority to incorporate infrastructure
to assist users in employing
multiple means of transportation
in a single trip in order to increase
transportation access and flexibility;
examples include, but are not limited
to, provisions for bicycle access on
public transportation, secure bicycle
racks at transit stops, access via
public transportation to trails and
recreation locations, and so on.
Ensure safe and accessible
pedestrian routes to public
transportation stops. Work with
the Regional Transit Authority
to possibly relocate stops if safe
routes are not feasible at current
location.
Work with the Regional Transit
Authority to ensure that public
transportation facilities and
vehicles are fully accessible to
people with disabilities.
Explore working with the Regional
Transit Authority to provide travel
training programs for older adults
and people with disabilities, as well
as awareness training for vehicle
operators.
Explore working with the Regional
Transit Authority to identify priority
lanes to improve travel time.
Partner with the Regional Transit
Authority to collect data and
establish performance standards
related to these steps.
Support Safe Routes to Schools
programs
Work with local public and
private school districts to pursue
encouragement programs such as
Walk and Bike to School Days, as
well as "Walking School Bus "/"Bike
Train" programs at elementary
schools, where parents take turns
accompany a group of children to
school on foot or via bicycle.
Gather baseline data on attitudes
about and levels of walking and
bicycling to school through student
tallies and parent surveys; gather
additional data each spring and fall
to measure progress.
Work with local public and private
school districts and advocates
to obtain Safe Routes to School
funding to implement education
programs.
Work with local and private school
districts to encourage education
programs that teach students
walking and bicycling behaviors,
and educate parents and drivers
in the community about the
importance of safe driving.
,1 o/;
Work with law enforcement to
speed limits and traffic laws, assist
in ensuring safe crossing, and
promote safe travel behavior within
the schools.
Encourage parents to get children
to school through active travel such
as walking or bicycling.
Collaborate with local school
districts to promote vehicular drop
off and pick up of students on
school property versus the City
right -of -way.
Pursue funding for safe crossing
except for crossing guards at all
schools.
Prioritize safety and roadway
improvements around our schools.
Conduct walkability and bikeability
audits along routes to schools to
identify opportunities and needs for
infrastructure improvements.
Ensure that speed limits in areas
within 1,000 linear feet of schools
are no greater than 15 mph below
the posted speed limit.
hi
Assess traffic speeds, volumes,
and vehicle types around schools.
implement traffic calming in areas
around schools where indicated
by speed and volume. Consider
closing streets to through traffic
during school hours if other
methods cannot reduce threat to
safety.
Pursue Safe Routes to
School funding to implement
infrastructure improvements.
Work with local public and
private school districts to improve
transportation safety around
schools, including drop -off and
pickup zones, as well as locations
where interactions occur
between pedestrians, bicyclists,
automobiles, and buses.
Work with local public and
private school districts to locate
and design new and remodeled
schools to be easily accessible
by foot or bicycle for the largest
number of students possible by
taking steps such as locating new
schools in or near neighborhoods
where students live, providing
safe and secure bicycle parking
within school facilities, and
allowing convenient access to
schools from public streets.
,,Frr
Encourage the development of parks
and open space with a network of
safe and convenient walking and
bicycle routes, including routes that
access other popular destinations,
such as schools.
Implement traffic calming measures
near parks where advisable due to
vehicle speeds and volumes.
Improve intersections at access
oints, such as traffic signal
crossings, to parks to create
greater visibility for all users and
provide accessible curb ramps and
additional time to cross the street.
Improve public transportation
connections to trails, parks, and
other recreational location.
Ensure that all parks and open
spaces can be reached through
safe routes for bicycling, walking,
and public transportation.
Ensure that trails, parks, and
open spaces have secure
bicycle parking facilities.
Improve bicycle, pedestrian, and
public transportation access to
residential areas, educational and
child care facilities, employment
centers, grocery stores, retail
centers, recreational areas,
historic sites, hospitals and clinics,
and other destination points.
A
■
y,,),1111111111111111111111 11111111/,
a
�i j it r f of ly
11 �� //i i l lire iir ( o L r �,
STATE ENABLING AUTHORITY
Under Chapter 213.003 of the Texas Local
Government Code, "a Comprehensive
Plan may be adopted by the City's
Governing body and may include:
provisions on land use, transportation, and
public facilities; consist of a single plan
or a coordinated set of plans organized
by subject and geographic area; and be
used to coordinate /guide establishment
of development regulations.
MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY
The Comprehensive Plan, mandated
by the City Charter, requires the City to
formulate a "Transportation" element of
the Comprehensive Plan. MobilityCC is
the updated and enhanced element. It
consolidates all past mobility element
updates with newly developed plans.
Ultimately, MobilityCC will also include
plans for transformation of facilities that
are developed in the City's Adopted
Area Development Plans. In so much
that mobility is interconnected to nearly
all social and physical dimensions of a
community, MobilityCC must be used in
concert with the other elements of the
City's Comprehensive Plan.
GEOGRAPHIC JURISDICTION OF THE
PLAN
MobilityCC is the City's official
Transportation Plan for all areas within the
City's corporate limits and its Extraterritorial
Jurisdiction (ETJ). The City's ETJ is
located five miles beyond, and parallel to,
the city limit line. State law allows a city
to exert subdivision regulations in the ETJ
and preserve the land for future expansion.
b is
corn,....m� „v e p n1arm9
as a cont nu us
goverilmente l function n
order to guide„ lr Lfl t,
nd ge fu tune
dove Pop Ime its
(City 0h ter 19
kW
1 /0,., % f D 41 li II J l nE ;;;
RELAT1ONSHIPTOTHE METROPOLITAN
PLANNING ORGANIZATION (MPO)
The Federal -Aid Highway Act of 1962
and subsequent amendments requires
that states and local governments for
each urbanized area provide a continuing
transportation planning program to
receive federal transportation funds. A
1973 amendment to the Highway Act
also required the governor of each state,
with the concurrence of local jurisdictions,
to designate a Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO) for every urbanized
area in the state to serve as the area -wide
transportation planning agency.
To conform to this directive, the Cities of
Corpus Christi and Portland, the Counties
of Nueces and San Patricio, the Regional
Transit Authority and the State Department
of Highways entered into an urban
transportation study agreement in 1973
to establish the transportation planning
process for the Corpus Christi urbanized
area. The Corpus Christi Metropolitan
Planning Organization assists member
cities by coordinating transportation plans
between the various MPO members,
conducting planning studies to address
regional transportation needs and funnel
State and Federal transportation funds to
high priority MPO transportation projects.
By adoption of this plan, the City of Corpus
Christi recommends that the MPO update
its transportation plan to be consistent with
the City's Mobility Plan.
To maintain flexibility and consistency in
the City's transportation planning process,
a clear protocol has been defined for
updating MobilityCC. The amendment
process is outlined in the City Charter
(1987) and requires City Council public
hearing and adoption. The City's Planning
Director, Assistant City Manager of Public
Works and Utilities or designee, shall
determine if a proposed development
is inconsistent with the Comprehensive
Plan and make recommendations to City
Council, Planning Commission, or other
boards or commissions accordingly.
Where a proposed development is
not consistent with MobilityCC, a plan
amendment is required. Inconsistency
with the Comprehensive Plan may be
defined as any proposed roadway pattern
that changes MobilityCC's proposed
street classification, reduces travel lanes
indicated in the adopted plan, or connects
or fails to connect with other roadways as
indicated in the plan. The City's Planning
Director and the City Engineer may allow
minor plan deviations where a street is
already fully improved (curb, gutter and
underground drainage) with the requisite
number of travel lanes and/or in State ROWs
consistent with TxDOT requirements.
Plan
Urban Transportation Plan
e a d Use Transp rt
way C ass" cati
ecutive Su ma
isting C n ition
nstruction Estimate
commendation
eC
oducti
vious Planning Effo
y HikeBikeCC.
F cility Design Stan. ar
Methodology of Tra'I Deve opment an.
Prior ty Network Recommendations
dditional Hike and Bike Opportuniti
mp ementat on
obility Concep s
37
oundabout
a iets
orridor Concepts
1
MEM
The Urban Transportation
Plan is the City's thoroughfare
plan and houses the street
classification system,
theultimate buildout of all
City streets, and on- street
bicycle facilities. The street
classification system defines
the street hierarchy. The Urban
Transportation Plan map will
serve as the graphic display
of all aspects of tyCC.
gpplllllll�lll�llllllw� `
w,i, llllll
J
Urban Transportation Plan
Thorou• hfare Pia
4 ipI Ho, IMlll1111111,
IIIIIIIIIII1 Iw1,11.1;J,
a
l
1111111 1111
EN
Ur n " T
r
ns
p
OM!
The UTP addresses the freeway,
arterial, and collector street networks in
the City of Corpus Christi and the City's
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ). The
purpose of the UTP is to designate the
ultimate rights-of-way, improvements and
alignments of the transportation network
necessary to create an efficient mobility
system for all modes of movement. In
addition, the UTP also includes sufficient
rights -of -way for the numerous public
utilities that must be placed under or
over the City's road system. Future
transportation requirements for right -of-
way dedication are addressed through
the Plan's routing and classification of
the City's Streets. Adjacent Cities and
outlying county areas outside of the City's
jurisdiction are intended to show the
connective nature of the transportation
system but not dictate street design
beyond the City's area of authority.
The UTP contains a hierarchy of
street classifications, definitions, and
p
1
n (UT
P)
a City streets map. The UTP will be
implemented by the City's Capital
Improvements Program (CIP), the
Unified Development Code (UDC),
and other City codes and ordinances.
Note: the right -of -ways provided
in the plan are the City's minimum
requirements. The City may require
additional right -of -way beyond the
minimum requirements of this plan
to ensure a safe and efficient street
network and to protect public health or
safety.
Alternatives to street right -of -way
widening to achieve the planned
street capacity should be considered
when widening is not feasible. Such
alternatives may include, but are not
limited to, improvement to nearby
streets to create relief routes, access
management, and traffic signal
synchronization or "smart signals."
(Amendment 2010)
rba n _u ° o u
uuu
um
The transportation system provides a land
access function and a traffic movement
function. In order to provide a safe and
efficient street network, it is important to
recognize this dual function. Because of
these opposing and sometimes conflicting
functional characteristics, no single
roadway type can meet all travel needs.
The UTP is based on the principle that
higher land use intensities should be
served by higher volume streets and lower
land use intensities should be served by
lower volume streets.
A system of street classifications in the
UTP defines the appropriate street
typology for different functional objectives
(e.g. land access vs. traffic movement).
In addition, the transportation network
must compliment and be integrated with
the existing land uses. A key goal of the
transportation plan is to appropriately
match the street type with the existing and
future use of adjacent property. Business,
industrial, or institutional centers, in
particular, require accessibility, visibility,
and thus, coordination with the thoroughfare
system To the extent that street typology
will be a key determinant of adjacent land
use and will influence the potential for
mode sharing by transit or non - vehicular
alternatives, selecting the appropriate
street type and configuration /alignment will
have a significant impact on the quality of
life within the community.
Local Access Streets
Local Access Streets are the most common
of street types and provide access to
individual residences, elementary schools
and parks in a neighborhood. The local
street is designed for low volumes of traffic
and is intended to discourage through
traffic. To reinforce low traffic volumes and
prevent high speed short cutting through
neighborhoods, off -set or "T" intersections
are appropriate.
Collectors
The Collector street type collects and
distributes traffic to and from local streets,
other collectors, arterials, and freeway
frontage roads. The function of this street
type is to "collect" neighborhood traffic and
strategically direct the traffic to the arterial
grid system. However, the Collector street
system should not create high speed "short
cuts" through residential neighborhoods.
The ideal collector street intersection
spacing between arterials is 0.25 to 0.50
miles apart. On- street parking and direct
access to homes and businesses from this
street type is discouraged.
C1— Minor Collector
The Minor Collector is the lowest order
collector and provides for internal
neighborhood circulation as well as
property access. This type of collector
should not connect parallel arterial streets
but may connect with arterial streets which
are perpendicular to one another. The
most common type of Collector street,
this collector will circulate traffic within a
neighborhood, moving it from a higher
order arterial street to a local access
street. This street class is not intended to
be continuous for more than one mile. Off-
sets, or "'T" intersections, are appropriate
for this class of street in order to prevent
short cuts through neighborhoods. This
street type may serve low density housing
to medium density multifamily housing,
elementary schools or other uses with
similar traffic generating characteristics.
C2 - Secondary Collector
The Secondary Collector will be used to
upgrade an existing Minor Collector where
traffic generation has exceeded existing
street capacity or in undeveloped areas
where the density of development may
F . „ 40 U rn 11 "raui ° °m 1po rtatii 111"""' r
not warrant a higher street classification.
The Secondary Collectors may service low
density residential uses, medium density
residential uses, elementary and middle
schools, low intensity business uses or
other uses with similar traffic generating
characteristics.
C3— Primary Collector
The Primary Collector provides access to
commercial developments and /or several
neighborhoods and may intersect with
two or more arterial streets. The Primary
Collector can augment the freeway or arterial
system where high- density development
generates significant amounts of traffic.
The Primary Collector may be used to
support the freeway system by paralleling
the freeway and providing a relief route for
traffic from high density uses next to the
freeway. The Primary Collector is expected
to support heavy delivery vehicle traffic and
is built to current standards and needs than
the Secondary or Minor Collector streets.
Primary Collector streets serve medium to
high density housing, high schools, public
facilities and business uses.
P1 — Parkway Collector
Parkways take advantage of natural or man-
made scenic views or areas. Parkways will
contain hike and bike trails on the scenic
side of the street.
Arterials
Arterial streets bring traffic to and from the
freeway and accommodate high volumes
of cross -town traffic. The ideal design of
the arterial system is characterized by a
grid street pattern with arterial spacing at
1 to 1.5 mile intervals. Efficient movement
is the primary function of arterial roads,
hence, private access and frontage
should be controlled and limited to high
volume generators like shopping centers,
universities, employment centers, etc.
Residential properties should not front on
these roads as access to small single lot
developments can erode the traffic carry
capacity of the arterial system.
Al -Minor Arterial (Undivided)
The Minor Arterial provides for citywide
and inter neighborhood traffic mobility
but functions at a lower level then the
Secondary Arterial. The primary emphasis
is on traffic movement with more emphasis
on land access then the Secondary Arterial.
A2—Secondary Arterial (Divided)
A Secondary Arterial Divided connects and
augments the primary arterial system. The
purpose of this arterial is to provide citywide
traffic mobility but functions at a lower level
and places more emphasis on land access
then the Primary Arterial.
A3 - Primary Arterial (Divided)
A roadway that augments the freeway
system and serves major through
movements of traffic between important
centers of activity, major traffic generators,
and with a substantial portion of trips
entering and leaving the area. Service to
abutting land is subordinate to the function
of moving through traffic.
Freeways
Freeways include all interstate highways,
expressways or other limited access
facilities. The freeway's primary function is
to serve high -speed regional and cross -town
traffic. These roadways are characterized
by access control and are usually multi -lane
divided roads with few, if any, intersections
at grade. Traffic speed is high and on street
bicycle traffic is prohibited on the main
lanes.
Special Purpose Streets
This street type refers type to a
cross- section that does not meet the
standard cross - section design due to
specific conditions caused by existing
development, state statute or other
factors. This classification may be
designated as an arterial, collector or
local street.
Marginal Access
A Marginal Access street is a service
street that runs parallel to a higher order
street and provides access to abutting
properties and separation from through
traffic. The Marginal Access Street
may be designed as a local access
street or secondary collector according
to anticipated daily traffic. Minimum
width as per current design standards.
42 sir 1' 1 Transport o n IPIlIl ii
Level of Service
Level of Service (LOS) is a means to
assess the performance of a road system
and to quantify the Community's overall
goals for road system performance. The
LOS measure is based on traffic flow
involving length of queues, traffic density
(light, moderate, heavy), and congestion.
This system of describing traffic conditions
is hierarchical, with LOS A being best and
descending to LOS F, as traffic conditions
deteriorate. Levels range from:
A: Light traffic on approach, short
stable queues exist during
red signal phase.
B: Moderate traffic on approach,
stable queues, little additional delay.
C: Moderately heavy traffic on
approach, moderately long
but stable queues during red signal
phase, moderate but acceptable
delay.
D: Heavy traffic on approach, long
unstable queues, delays sometimes
becoming excessive.
E: Heavy flow (capacity) on approach,
long queues suffering excessive
delays.
F: Heavily congested traffic
conditions. More traffic demand
than signal capacity.
An important goal for the City of Corpus
Christi is to achieve a Level Of Service
no lower than LOS D for the City's arterial
street system.
GDR'
f" f h e n
an
ha, inc ude the
foil i n
. tralVr sponrtat,'IIon
e[errient ... 'stab lil`sh
GOIlrf p
r
f ' 11r11ri
" e nI ter
p a ur lu'i'i nn g
cO'lntlu'lnU 'OuUuS
f rn rl ctIII 0 1n
to guic e rEiiguiate,
'mInnd manage future
e oipmernt ..„ (City
'Charter 1 9 8
3 Fbar insportatian I310'. u,���
Offset Rights -of -Way
Right -of -way dedications during the
subdivision process are intended to
be shared equally between adjacent
property owners. Occasionally, existing
development on one side of the roadway
will become an obstacle to increasing the
right -of -way equally on both sides of the
roadway. In such cases an more right -of-
way will need to be acquired on one side of
the roadway then the other. In such cases
the City will acquire, through dedication,
up to one half of the total street right -of-
way with the remaining offset" portion to
be purchased by the City or some other
public entity. Until the City has the funds
available for purchase of the rights -of-
way, a building line shall be placed on the
property, as indicated by an offset right -of-
way designation on the Transportation Plan
Map and / or subdivision plat. The purpose
of the building line is to prevent structures
from being erected on property that will
later be purchased for street widening.
Yard requirements must be measured from
the future right -of -way line established by
the Building Line.
The following is a list of streets where an
off -set may occur:
Wooldridge Road between Rodd Field
Road and the extension of Ennis Joslin
Drive
State Highway 361 between the Packery
Channel and the Port Aransas City Limits
County Road 52 (Haven Drive) extended
east of McKenzie Road
Holly Road east of Rodd Field Drive
Chapman Ranch Road (State Highway
286) south F.M. 43
Graham Road between Laguna Shores
Road and Cayo Del Oso
Carbon Plan Road between IH 37 and
Nueces River
Cimarron Boulevard between Yorktown
and use Parkway
..................................... ...............................
Clarkwood Road between State Highway
44 and I.H. 37
Note: a minimum 20 foot yard requirement
must be provided in addition to the above
rights -of -way.
44 :° sp rta do In p lllan
U rb a
d a or
8 8 § § §
Lri e-i n▪ .e "RP
8 0020 0 0 0
§ § § § § § §
Ci
Or in sea- s
- ir3
..4-2
ins Lea in
."asa
s e t - 0 0 0
222
cca
nC ...9
Ctl
set ses en as
0 0 0
Fra- t......)
LI.J LA.g
0 0 en ta, WI CO CI
9.1 93 99 99 99 tn GO1 0 a .C( .....
9- 9- 9- 9- 9- 9-
g Egu
2 EL
O tit Eh
g . 4.2 g- g ••,•V g A ce =
▪ 2222 2- 2 2 92 0 ce
• ect nn en nn ...... ..... .....
ra me CM tE = =
• C9 0 0 0 m m m
m MI
ZE at -sr M 0. 0 0 0 . 0.1
......, ....„,„ ....„,„ ...„„ • ..t-
E
= g = =
1—
0 00
z
8 E M M
cu
Ca ,ss sas
1.0
w
ea
P .a4
:ma
- s--
en
P aa .K. en en in vi En En 0 93
= Cil 0 no en
2 (19 Ln
2 > LU ▪ 2 5 0. 2 Ca CU OS as as
= = C p
ea LU as as 0
_9 13 ez 2
.S 5 i
C.9 ncr -.4-
..1. C•1 ../. nl- CM m
at, g
8
0 sea 0'1 eel
es-
"-Erb 8 z5 7-1`3 2
w
e x - -
2
Cr -2 e, ea is,' ..•
• g• ' g -e% C5 a g
... ri_ X E
g Lj
z
45: ""111""rans oDo Iv. o n l'""'"111 a n
,111111,11,11,11,11,11,11,11,11,111111111111111111111V
o
a • opts
in 2012 is
a "c �� rehensive
analysis of accessibility in
the City of Corpus`.;;, Christi.
The ADA MasterPlan`
provides the Iist,of `project
funding packages;, °existin•
conditions, and proposed.
ADA accessible routes. As
an element of MobilityCC
ADA Master Plan provides`,
invaluable informatio`n`;to
be used during the decisio
making process for future
projects to ensure that
accessibility is a central
consideration in how we plan,
ui ,m iii Ind maintain.
rr
.W IIIIYi�IU�I I�IIII �ll��l�l���lll�ll�llti
•
1111111111 mmmmm
or Pedestrian Infrastructure
mprovements In Compliance with
mericans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
a it
IIIto' stIIr�a tIt
(AD
.uo c t -I1 E. S U M lug
BACKGROUND
The ADA Master Plan was developed to address the City's pedestrian infrastructure
needs as mandated by the Americans with Disabilities Act and ADA Title II. As part of the
Federal mandate, local governments were obligated to conduct a self - evaluation of their
pedestrian infrastructure facilities, and create a Transition Plan to address the issues dis-
covered in the self - evaluation. In February of 2003, the City adopted its ADA Title II Com-
prehensive Evaluation and Transition Plan, which provided the ground work for future
curb ramp improvements, but failed to map or quantify proposed ADA accessible routes
within the city, and did not include sidewalks in the evaluation.
The purpose of the ADA Master Plan is to continue the progress that has been completed
in the City's Transition Plan. Specifically, the ADA Master Plan includes the mapping
of proposed ADA accessible routes interconnecting locations of interest across the city,
an existing condition inventory of curb ramps, sidewalks and other pedestrian elements
along the proposed ADA accessible routes, identification of ADA deficiencies along those
routes, projected construction costs to address the identified deficiencies, a proposed
schedule for the construction of the pedestrian infrastructure improvements, and identifi-
cation of potential funding sources to fund the improvements.
Project Scope:
This project consists of the development of the City of Corpus Christi ADA Master Plan for
the long -range planning, prioritization, construction and maintenance of future pedestrian
infrastructure improvements within the City's street rights - of-way. The plan includes an
inventory of existing conditions, an implementation schedule with proposed funding and
prioritization requirements, and the mapping of ADA accessible routes. When adopted,
the final plan will be incorporated into the City's Geographic Information System (GIS).
For the purposes of this ADA Master Plan, only arterial and collector street corridors
within the City of Corpus Christi were considered.
48 I ' , M a rte r 11 a in
SU STING L OIINII II[ Ill T O N S
Approximately 224 miles of city streets were included in the pedestrian infrastruc-
ture evaluations along proposed ADA accessible routes. In general, the existing
curb ramps along the proposed accessible routes were found to be in poor condi-
tion, with only approximately 36% of the curb ramps being compliant at the time of
evaluation, where curb ramps existed. At approximately 40% of the total number
of locations evaluated, nProjo curb ramps existed at all. Sidewalks were found to
be in generally fair condition. Where sidewalk existed along the proposed acces-
sible routes, approximately 63% of the total length was determined to be usable.
However, at approximately 27% of the total length of pedestrian routes evaluated,
no sidewalk existed at all. The following tables summarize the findings for curb
ramps and sidewalks along the proposed ADA accessible routes:
Condition of Existing Curb Ramp Locations
Along Proposed ADA Accessible Routes
Compliant Curb Ramp Locations (Ea) 1,283
Non - Compliant Curb Ramps Locations (Ea) 2,248
Locations with No Curb Ramps (Ea) 2,326
Total Number of Locations Evaluated (Ea) 5,857
Condition of Existing Sidewalks Paths
Along Proposed ADA Accessible Routes
Usable Sidewalk Path (miles)
Unusable Sidewalk Path (miles)
No Sidewalk Path (miles)
163.5
94.6
97.3
Total Length of Pedestrian Routes Evaluated (miles) 355.4
4
ADA M ster "Illau-i
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
At signalized intersections along the proposed ADA accessible routes, an inventory of
existing pedestrian signals and crosswalks was taken. The presence or lack of pedestrian
signals and crosswalks was documented for each direction across the intersection (four
possible movements). The findings for pedestrian signals and crosswalks along the
proposed ADA accessible routes are summarized in the following tables:
Condition of Existing Pedestrian Signals at Signalized Intersections
Along Proposed ADA Accessible Routes
Locations (Directions)
with Pedestrian Signal Present (Ea) 385
Locations (Directions)
with No Pedestrian Signal (Ea) 259
Total Locations (Directions)
with Pedestrian Signals Evaluated (Ea) 644
Condition of Existing Crosswalks at Signalized Intersections
Along Proposed ADA Accessible Routes
Locations (Directions)
with Crosswalk Present (Ea) 442
Locations (Directions)
with No Crosswalk (Ea) 202
Total Locations (Directions)
with Crosswalks Evaluated (Ea) 644
A IA
Proposed ADA Accessible Routes
The proposed ADA accessible routes were selected based on the interconnectivity they
provide between various places of interest within the City, ranked by:
1. City/ State/ Public Buildings
2. Major Transportation Routes
3. Places of Public Accommodation
The intent of the selected routes is to allow for inter connectivity between the listed
locations. This allows access for a person confined to the use of a wheelchair to travel
between the various places of interest, once the entire system of ADA accessible routes
is constructed.
CC
Estimated construction costs for all improvements within the ADA Master Plan are
summarized in the following table:
Estimated Construction Costs For
All Improvements Identified in ADA Master Plan
Item Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost
Non - Compliant
Curb Ramps (Ea) 2,248 $7,800 $17,534,400
Non - Existent
Curb Ramps (Ea) 2,326 $7,800 $18,142,800
Unusable
Sidewalk (LF) 499,520* $36 $8,991,300
Non- Existent
Sidewalk (LF) 513,876 $36 $18,499,500
Pedestrian
Signals (Ea) 259 $6,250 $1,618,900
Crosswalks (Ea) 202 $3,900 $787,800
Total Estimated Project Costs (2012 Dollars) = $65,574,700
* Note that, of the entire length of unusable sidewalk in each phase of the ADA
Master Plan, improvements to approximately 50% of the length will improve the
sidewalk to a usable condition. Therefore, only 50% of the length is used in the
cost calculation.
0 AA DM as ter i'=" Illain
The ADA Master Plan Pedestrian Infrastructure Improvements are divided into three (3)
phases, corresponding to the ranking system shown below:
Phase 1 -ADA Accessible Routes interconnecting City/ State/ Public Buildings
Phase 2- ADA Accessible Routes interconnecting Major Transportation Routes
Phase 3- ADAAccessible Routes interconnecting Places of Public Accommodation
The locations of these ADAAccessible Routes are graphically illustrated on the following
page:
r�u,. III °° II I
zr,
/rfirr -rrt
54
,,44444, 14
ADA. °Plaster n
01;
11111111E1mo
111111111111110111111101111111111111111101111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111100
PHASE 1
PHASE 2
PHASE 3
55
didVe
• --,,,,•••••••:::.'••..••••':"'•••••,',,,,,'y,,,!,•••,•,,.. ,:••••
•
A[))\ lkida a rl
p:IyypAyAgggslAymypplypplyg
111,111,11,11,11,11,11,11,11,111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111!!,
Estimated construction costs for each of the three ADA Master Plan Phases are
summarized in the following tables:
Estimated Construction Costs For
Phase 1 -ADA Accessible Routes for City/ State/ Public Buildings
Item Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost
Non - Compliant
Curb Ramps (Ea) 636 $7,800 $4,960,800
Non - Existent
Curb Ramps (Ea) 474 $7,800 $3,697,200
Unusable
Sidewalk (LF) 131,560* $36 $2,368,100
Non - Existent
Sidewalk (LF) 37,970 $36 $1,366,900
Pedestrian
Signals (Ea) 61 $6,250 $381,300
Crosswalks (Ea) 81 $3,900 $315,900
Phase 1 Total Estimated Project Costs (2012 Dollars) 413,090,200
PLC,,° ' A ter 111" "1
Estimated Construction Costs For
Phase 2- ADAAccessible Routes for Major Transportation Routes
Item Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost
Non - Compliant
Curb Ramps (Ea) 768 $7,800 $5,990,400
Non - Existent
Curb Ramps (Ea) 1001 $7,800 $7,807,800
Unusable
Sidewalk (LF) 194,440* $36 $3,499,900
Non - Existent
Sidewalk (LF) 192,516 $36 $6,930,600
Pedestrian
Signals (Ea) 117 $6,250 $731,300
Crosswalks (Ea) 92 $3,900 $358,800
Phase 2 Total Estimated Project Costs (2012 Dollars) = $25,318,800
P t„,,A
Estimated Construction Costs For
Phase 3- ADAAccessible Routes for Places of Public Accommodation
Item Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost
Non-Compliant
Curb Ramps (Ea) 844 $7,800 $6,583,200
Non-Existent
Curb Ramps (Ea) 851 $7,800 $6,637,800
Unusable
Sidewalk (LF) 173,520* $36 $3,123,300
Non-Existent
Sidewalk (LF) 283,390 $36 $10,202,000
Pedestrian
Signals (Ea) 81 $6,250 $506,300
Crosswalks (Ea) 29 $3,900 $113,100
Phase 3 Total Estimated Project Costs (2012 Dollars) = $27,165,700
* Note that, of the entire length of unusable sidewalk in each phase of the ADA
Master Plan, improvements to approximately 50% of the length will improve the
sidewalk to a usable condition. Therefore, only 50% of the length is used in the
cost calculation.
58
ADA, PIA' StI9111" 1,31arl
Each of the three phases of the ADA Master Plan has been further prioritized and
subdivided into project packages. Phase 1 has been subdivided into project packages
of approximately $1,000,000 each, and Phases 2 and 3 have been subdivided into
project packages of approximately $5,000,000 each. These divisions have been made
to prioritize the construction of the pedestrian infrastructure improvements within each
phase, and to keep project costs within manageable funding budgets. Projects for Phase
1 are divided into smaller packages since it is anticipated that this phase can be funded
within the next few years. Projects for Phases 2 and 3 are divided into larger packages
since it is anticipated that these phases will be funded beyond a 5 -year timeframe.
The detailed project packages are included in Appendix A.
Potential Funding Options
There are several potential funding sources for the ADA Master Plan pedestrian
infrastructure improvements, including:
• City of Corpus Christi Bond Program
• Partnership/ Funding Agreements with Nueces County
• Partnership/ Funding Agreements with the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA)
• Community Development Block Grants (CDBG)
• Coordinated Efforts with the Corpus Christi Metropolitan Planning Organization
• (MPO) and/or the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), Federal Grants
including Safe Routes to School Program and /or Enhancement Projects
• Indirect Funding through the selection of Street Improvement Projects along
Proposed ADA Accessible Routes
PVC° d rt,r IF" Iart]
iiiiiiii'
111111111111,11,111u irrt6,1
)A
The proposed improvements in the ADA Master Plan should be immediately taken into
consideration in the City's planning and budgeting processes. Given the amount of funds
required to fully fund the entire Master Plan (approximately $65M), it is recommended
that a systematic funding approach be implemented, with the main source of funding
being the City's Bond Program. At a minimum, the City should strive to fund $14M of
ADA Master Plan improvements every cycle of the four -year Bond Program ($3.5 million
per year). This will allow for fully funding all phases of the ADA Master Plan over the
next 20 years.
There are several other potential funding sources which may further reduce the timeframe
needed to fully fund the ADA Master Plan. The City should continue to work closely with
the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) to create and maintain funding agreements
that are of benefit to both parties. Additionally, the City should aggressively pursue
and apply for Federal funding for portions of the ADA Master Plan through Community
Development Block Grants (CDBG), the Safe Routes to School Program, and the
Transportation Enhancement Program. Coordinating these efforts with the Corpus Christi
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and the Texas Department of Transportation
(TxDOT) is prudent. One other possible funding source for the City consider is funding
portions of the ADA Master Plan through its Capital Improvement Program (CIP).
As an indirect funding mechanism, the City should continue to fund and construct ADA
pedestrian improvements in association with Street Improvement Projects, utilizing the
ADA Master Plan as a tool for identifying ADA accessible routes.
The City may utilize the GIS shapefiles included in Appendix D of this ADA Master Plan as
an integral tool in all future pedestrian infrastructure planning, design, and construction.
The City should require all NE consultants to adhere to the Pedestrian Curb Ramp
Standards in Appendix C and other requirements contained in this ADA Master Plan in
order to standardize the design and construction of pedestrian infrastructure elements
within the City of Corpus Christi that will be maintained by the City.
t. ^'
60 /hlfl A Master Han
As improvements identified in the ADA Master Plan are planned, funded, designed
and constructed, the need for updating of the GIS shapefiles and map books will be
necessary. All GIS shapefiles should be updated periodically to track the progress of
the ADA Master Plan improvements. Updates can be prepared by in -house personnel
or via consultant contracts through the use of record (as- built) drawings for projects that
include construction of public pedestrian infrastructure improvements.
ADA Mash mmm
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
1
ikeBikeCC is the City's
trails master plan and
identifies all off -road
bicycle and pedestrian
facilities. The plan
prescribes a methodology
for prioritizing projects
based on connectivity.
In this way, Hik ikeCC
promotes al ative
modes of trans • o
HikeBik
frail S v cm�
Introduction
CC
"caster Plan
Bicycling, walking and mass transit opportunities are vital components of an efficient
transportation system. Historically, bicycle lanes and hike and bike trails in Corpus Christi
have been treated as dedicated recreational facilities with little consideration of the nexus
between these facilities and the larger transportation network. HikeBike CC, in contrast,
was drafted with the understanding that a well - connected network of trails simultaneously
01iil,elE ikeCC
improves mobility and recreation opportunities and promotes public health and wellness
for the citizens of Corpus Christi.
This element is a key part of the fabric of MobilityCC, as realization of the objectives
outlined in the Introduction of MobilityCC depends in part on implementation of key steps
to promote non- vehicular mode share. HikeBikeCC was developed by incorporating
recommendations derived from earlier studies as well as from engagement with the
citizens of Corpus Christi, key stakeholders and City staff.
keBikeCC
R
11
Part of the master planning process
includes knowledge of previous planning
efforts. This knowledge and background
can provide a guide to plan for critical
deficiencies. Previous plans and studies
reviewed as a part of this planning effort
include:
T3
The Corpus Christi Strategic Parks and
Recreation Master Plan
(2012)
The Corpus Christi Integrated
Community Sustainability Plan
(2011)
The Urban Transportation Plan (2010)
MPO Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan (2005)
Oso Creek/Oso Bay Master Plan
(71
Goal #3:
Increase recreation
opportunities and
•
The activities Trails"
T e Corpus Christi Strategic Parks and
Recreation Master Plan (2012)
66
-
Existing Conditions of
the Bicycle Network
20.25 miles of Existing
Bicycle and Pedestrian Paths
46.5 miles of Existing
Bike Lanes
17.3 miles of Existing
Trail Miles
51.9 miles of Priority
Trail Miles
123.8 miles of Opportunity
Trail Miles
y
The need to develop a trail system master
plan has been identified through community
support, stakeholder visioning, needs
assessment by the Parks and Recreation
Department, and previous plans and
studies. I- iikeBikeCC identifies strategies
for achieving goals and priorities found
in elements of the City's comprehensive
plan, particularly the Parks and Recreation
Master Plan, and other parts of MobilityCC.
)#,,/
ipirl i II 1 ' 11
) )1 )
'900 u000008
1000000[1 11111110001111
PLAN
Integrated Community Sustainability
Plan
The Integrated Community Sustainability-
Mobility Concepts plan identifies mobility
concepts and implementation and target
areas for investment in compact, efficient
development. The availability of mobility
options is a fundamental attribute of
these areas and include the following:
• Provide more transportation choices.
• Develop safe, reliable, and economical
transportation choices to decrease
household transportation costs, reduce
our nation's dependence on foreign oil,
improve air quality, reduce greenhouse
gas emissions, and promote public
health.
Parks and Recreation Department
Strategic Master Plan
Through the extensive public engagement
process of the Parks and Recreation
Strategic Master Plan, "Creating a
Sustainable System: the Corpus Christi
Strategic Parks and Recreation Master
Plan" ( SPRMP), walking, jogging and/
or bicycling was identified as the number
one recreation priority. The SPRMP also
identifies a goal of providing a community
and/or regional park in each of the seven
identified planning areas. This goal is
currently being met, however some parks
only meet acreage requirements and lack
the proposed minimum facilities identified
in the SPRMP. The proposed minimum
facilities for a regional park include walking
trails of at least one mile in length.
Additionally, "major investments parks"
were identified as those for which priority
recommendations fall into one of three
categories:
■
loonoll""' 111111111111,1111
Parks to Standards Improvements
— Upgrade existing parks and
recreation facilities that suffer
from deferred maintenance
Recreation Development
Priority- Provide new recreation
improvements and facilities
Infrastructure Improvements —
Provide improvements to existing
infrastructure at Park and Recreation
facilities that allow them to be used
for their intended purposes and
construct new facilities that provide
for more efficient maintenance and
operating of existing facilities
All told, there are seven priorities,
objectives, and recommendations
from the SPRMP that are
accomplished by developing a trail
system master plan.
lopp
v
Parks Master Plan Areas
C crmllrus chrim 11ww,1sr,
Paroling Aram Pr L , Fleming Area S
Prtaraawrrvreg Auras P aeumr srrg aXrmava g
O Barr0drlgArw:& 3 ME Riming A m 7
%Plly //% Ph arming Area 4
12.■04103 03110 ruraru
010:0011011110110 102011111111111110'
'011111111111111111111111111111011111111111100" 1" 1
lam mµaaua, au.JI I Iu �iaurw
If 22 asam,0, ca , 201110 V 101001.).
f HALFF
ERG
COUNTY
6
111-like Iii1kleICC:
111111111111111111111111111111111111
N i iN' III
4F' . ; Illlf 9P'" iu IIn S "t ili I
rd„
The following standards and any
subsequent editions will be recommended
to be used to review all City transportation
related projects. Design decisions
related to Hike and Bike Trails will be at
the discretion and decision ofe a review
committee comprised of representatives
of the following departments: Parks
and Recreation, Planning, Engineering
Services, Streets, Development Services,
and Storm Water.
AASHTO — American Association of
State Highway Transportation Officials
Guide for the Development of
Bicycle Facilities, 4th Ed. (2012)
Planning, Design, & Operation of
Pedestrian Facilities, 1st Ed.
Policy on Geometric Design of
Highways and Streets, 6th Ed.
NACTO — National Association of City
Transportation Officials
Urban Bikeway Design Guide, 2nd
Ed. (2012)
TXDOT — Texas Department of
Transportation
Roadway Design Manual (2010)
iIv
Chapter 5 of AASHTO's Guide for the
Development of Bicycle Facilities,
concerns the design of shared uses paths.
The City prefers the use of Decomposed
Granite (DG) or Concrete for the surface of
shared use paths over any other material.
Other materials may only be used when
conditions prevent the use of preferred
materials and a determination is made by
the review committee. Such conditions and
obstacles are described within AASHTO's
guide. Chapter 5 further describes the
shared use path design standards,
specifically for accessibility requirements,
width and clearance, shared use paths
adjacent to roadways (side paths), design
speeds, cross slope, grades, stopping sight
distance, drainage, lighting, and surface
structures.
r,�rz�JJ/yJJ)J�7,4.. vfip. /;r % // ;tyre- 77�%y /% 'rl % -.pp: l / / / / %l /// 1,
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii000000000000000000000000000000000l
Wei
Cowes
II 0 �a 11 1 i l
l0 or
11111111111111111111111111111111111111 0 1 III
movomomli
11110 I 11
Trail Development and
Prioritization
The evaluation of existing trails and
prioritization of new trail segments captured
in this document reflects the application
of a standardized, semi - quantitative
analysis using Geographic Information
Systems (GIS) data. This assessment and
prioritization methodology was derived
from basic questions describing the basic
functionality —in terms of both recreation
and connectivity —of a given trail segment
from the user's point of view. Planning staff
identified discrete, measurable metrics
related to each of these basic questions:
Where am I going?
• Proximity of trail segment to one or
more ICSP Destination Nodes
• Proximity of trail segment to schools
• Proximity of the trail segment to
civiclhealth institutions
• Proximity or connection to one or
more major investment parks,
regional parks, or community parks
as described in the Corpus
Christi Strategic Parks and
Recreation Master Plan
• Proximity of the trail segment to
recreational amenities
• Connection to an existing previously
constructed) segment
Am I safe?
• Proximity to designated or de facto
safe routes to school (based on
data from School Crossing Guard
Study provided by the City's Traffic
Engineering about how children move
to and from school)
• Potential to create a closed loop trail
facility
How do I feel using this facility?
• Direct: number of complaints gathered
referring to a specific segment
• Indirect: facility use data (as a proxy for
positive public sentiment about relative
functionality)
Planning staff integrated data from the
metrics listed above with priorities identified
in existing plans, including the MobilityCC
map and the Corpus Christi Strategic
Parks and Recreation Master Plan, as
well as with public input and institutional
knowledge gleaned from City staff to yield
the proposed priority network segments.
PRIORITYNETWORK RECOr DA NS
Nueces River
Recreation
Trail
Existing
Labonte Park
Interstate 37
End of Park
0.98
Priority
Ripple Road
FM 624 (Northwest Boulevard)
1-37
0.12
Opportunity
Sharpsburg Road
Interstate 37
Up River Road
1.25
Opportunity
River Walk Drive
Clear Fork Ditch
FM 624 (Northwest
Boulevard)
0.26
Opportunity
FM 624 (Northwest Boulevard)
River Walk Drive
County Road 69
0.85
Opportunit
County Road 69
FM 624 (Northwest Boulevard)
County Road 52
0.56
Wit
�� �
\\\\\\\O\\\O\\\\O\\\O\\O\\O\\O\\O\\\\\\\\��\�
� ,„ ���
,�\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ om\\\\�\\,\\\,\\ ,
� ��-�_�,��������,��.
��\\\\moo \ \
�,
�L
Priority
Trail
Nueces River/Labonte Park
Wood River #1 Ditch
2.59
Opportunity
Trail
Polywog Pond
1-37
2.72
(Opportunity
Trail
Nueces River
Clear Fork Ditch
0.93
III I111u1111lll11lll1111111l11ll1111l11ll11l111
11 1 11 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1 1111
� 11'1111
1 1 1 1 111111111 1111111111111
ro
11 1 111111
11 1 1111111111111 IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII 11 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
Ono-folk IEO
Brawner Parkway Trail
Recreation & Connectivity
\\
s ' '
Qn-Streec Street \
\ \\Frc \
.i
Priorit Ramse Street/Horne Road
Brawner Parkwa
A ers Street
0.46
O• .ortunit Carroll Lane
South Sta • les Street
SH 358 S.P.I.D.
1.67
Os •ortunit Fort Worth Street
Texas Trail
Brawner Parkwa
0.65
O • •ortunit Fort Worth Street
Brawner Parkwa
Doddrid • e Street
0.18
O • • ortunit Doddrid •e Street
Fort Worth Street
Fort Worth Street
0.09
O • +ortunit Fort Worth Street
Doddrid • e Street
Carmel Parkwa
0.89
O• •ortunit Santa Fe Street
Robert Drive
Louisiana Parkwa
2.8
Off Sitr \ Tr \\\\\\\\\ \\
9 71411160
Priorit Trail: Brawner Parkwa
Ramse Street
Ocean Drive
2.72
8
o
0
(2
# • - - e ---s------
ti.
Brawner Parkway:
HikeBikeCC
on Street Facilities Schools
r t_a -`
mom g ier o
-
Off Street FacsI tree = ham � � �
M-.§..a:s '_-:5:-Zc„.77,'F--& .,....\ ---..-- ,„,,‘_
N
1
Illvvvvvv.v.vvvvvvvi 1
111,11.11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 111111111111111111 .
7 5
VVV,111111111
1111111111111111111
11111111111111 1 1 11
'1'11111111111111111 1111
Oso Golf Trail
Recreation Si
Connectivity
I-'4":2-
il'�_
�Str+e� j.
.�-��\\\\\\\\\\\\\
yam .
��\\\\\\Il=ro�\\\ \ . .7-7—c------7---0 \\ . '''''7M
MEW
Ocean Drive
Louisiana Parkwa Sand Dollar Drive TAMUCC
6.08
IMMEIM
S+ur 3 Ennis Joslin Road
Ocean Drive SH 358 S.P.I.D.
2.36
Priorit
Airline Road
Ocean Drive SH 358 S.P.I.D,
2
0. s ortunit
Nile Drive
S our 3 Ennis Joslin Road Williams Drive
1.26
0. sortunit
Pharoah Drive
S+ur 3 Ennis Joslin Road Delta Drive
0.8
0. +ortunit
Delta Drive
Pharoah Drive Bernice Drive
0.15
O. +ortunit
Bernice Drive
Delta Drive Susan Drive
0.42
0. +ortunit
Cleo I arra Drive
Oso Golf Course Whitaker Drive
0.14
Of +ortunit
Whitaker Drive
Cleo *eta Drive Ricke Drive
0.09
0. +ortunit
Ricke Drive
Whitaker Drive Prince Drive
0.16
O+ +ortunit
Prince Drive
Ricke Drive Susan Drive
0.15
0. sortunit
Belmeade Drive
Gollihar Road Hu+o Drive
0.12
O+ +ortunit
Hu+o Drive
Airline Road She +hard Drive
0.45
0. +ortunit
She+hard Drive
Hu+o Drive Burr Drive
0.28
O + + ortunit
Burr Drive
She + hard Drive Prince Drive
0.13
Sty\`\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
iFroii\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\Tro\\\\ 7S
t7Le
s \,
Priorit
Around Oso Golf Course
Airline Road South Alameda Street
1.62
.„„,,,„.„41iiiii11111111111111111111111,11,11111111111111111„
„„„„rjiiriiiuy111J11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111voi„:„-
11''''111111111111ijjjypypypypyM/yptitihqii1
• '1'1!
1111
„„„ „,„„Qui111111111111Mbou,„lio.....
11111 .,„„„•
1111111111,1111111h1"
111111111111111111111111
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
moo
11111
•••••:•,.::111111
„„„l11111111111■11111111111111111111111111111111111111lIllllllll111111111111111111111111lillIlllllllllllllIllll
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
I 1111111111111111111111111111
1000001111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111110
111111111111111111111
.,,11111„.„(11111111111111111111i1i1i1i1i1i1i1i1i111111111414141414141111111111101011111111111111111111111110,,,q.„9::::::::::::,,,,,,,,,,,,,111::::17;1:1,11,11,?::::11,11!!!„,
'111111'111111111111 If
111111111111111
1011111111111
"
'''''''',..,„i„i1)„!111,1.11111!1$111!11111111111:11:1}1
77
kellIll31111k e CC
10
fY
rATIONS
Oso Wilderness
Recreational
Trail
Existin •
Oso Drive
Canadian Drive
Wooldrid • e Drive
1.16
0. •ortunit
Glenoak Drive
Flour Bluff Drive
Oso
1
0. •ortunit
Roscher Road
Glenoak Drive
Yorktown Boulevard
1.51
O• •ortunit
Holl Road
Holl Brid• a
Flour Bluff Drive
1.75
Off4
iiii \
\Fr+ \\\O\\\O\\\O\\O\\O\\\O\\\OTo
\OO\\\\\O\\\O\
L
E
s
•
Trail
Holl Road
Holl Brid• a
0.81
O• •ortunit
Trail
SH 358 S.P.I.D.
Holl Bride
1.24
O.. ortunit
Trail
Holl Brid • e
Ma Carroll Ditch
3.21
O• •ortunit
Trail
North Oso Parkwa
The Mansions Drive
1.38
O. •ortunit
Trail
Ma Carroll Ditch
Master Channel 27
4.41
O• •ortunit
Trail
Graham Road
Yorktown Boulevard
3.89
11.11,110 umuuq111"11'
fig VPOWs
.d
o
&Mg:
V17 <7iY„ r4 Jr, UNiYr <Yl'ri
IH k k €CC
MINH
€� 3 -ORK RECON € ION
Bill Witt Trail
Recreational
On-Stree#� Street \ \ ..'----,—\'-\\-.\---_,-. \\_
-'-,,
,
=EMI Oso Parkwa FM 43 Weber Road
Cimarron Boulevard
4.13
• South Oso Parkwa La+o Vista Drive
Lago Vista Drive
0.33
Priorit Yorktown Boulevard
CR 2444 South Sta • les Street
Airline Road
2.14
Priorit Airline Road
SH 358 S.P.I.D,
Yorktown Boulevard
3.64
Priorit Cimarron Boulevard
Oso Parkwa
Park
0.24
O • g ortunit Yorktown Boulevard
Airline Road
Flour Bluff Drive
2.87
O • +ortunit Li • es Boulevard
CR 2444 South Sta +les Street
Rodd Field Road
1.76
\ \\\ �
Stmt � �r[iii � \\'-',„'--_,,\\
� � ��\\\\\�\�
. \ \
�\\\\\\\ oma:\\O\\O\\O\\\O\\\\\\\
\ \\ \\\\�\
� \ \ „‘„,—_,z,
\\\\\T��, �\
\\ �\\\
,
,L
9 zed
ti
Priorit Bear Creek
Bill Witt Park
Oso Creek Park
1;05
Priorit Bill Witt Park
Yorktown Boulevard
Cimarron Boulevard
3.79
0• •ortunit Trail
Bill Witt Park
Ma Carroll Ditch
4.43
O • •ortunit Trail following Oso Creek South Bank
La go Vista Drive
Yorktown Boulevard
5.42
O g •ortunit Master Channel 31
Timbers ate Drive
End
3.66
0001000000000000000000000000
111111111111 III
• ,
.0 4 • •s f,
•
• cp. lc
e•alu.s...'a
a
,
s
6
•
•
I -
/ • ; •
( : / z/
y„,,,,,,,,,,,),■11•111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111!!itili„:1...
40,
'••• 1101
,::111.111111111111111111lill'
0111111111:"
''''',"""i'll'i'i'lli1111111111111111111111111111111111,11....
-,11,11:111111'11111111111111i111v
1•!11111111111111111111111111111111111111111NANNI1111111,1,1111)),1,4„,..,..„„
, ao 0, II a al
81
111-4111(e1E3 Ilk e CC
1.1111111111,1111111111111111111, III III III 1111,11111,111,11
1111111111111111111111111111111 III 11111111111111111
III 1 11111111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111
• 111 III 111111111IIIN'i
The Lozano Loop
Recreation
Priorit
O • • ortunit
Priorit
Priorit
Priorit
Priorit
Columbia Street
OId Brownsville Road
Trail/Loo •
Trail/Loo •
Trail/Loo •
Trail
Horne Road
Horne Road
Enter • rize Ditch
Dr. H.P. Garcia Park
Salinas Park
Around Lozano Golf Course
A • nes Street
OId Brownsville Road
1.28
0.51
0.81
1.47
2.59
1.4
17,
,„„'„:„.„„!1„IiI1111,1■11•1111„1„!Iii'10111111",„,„,
.1.„111111111 I.. II
111 11111 111119111111111
111111111111111111111111111111111
',111111111111111,1, 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111.
L',Liii100000000000011,11.1
looluolluouuuluoulot000lloy
lovuounon000n000nonnonumokI11111111111101111koLL
1,1111111i 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
11111 11111
11V 1 k 11111 ,l'""1,11
' IIINL'ALL'ALL ndi".1
,11111 ro o „,„1
.i,';',,,I,.'1,1,11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,1111,1,1,11.1,1,1,11,1,1,1,11,1,1,1,11,111111,111:1:1:°':(C(!),:!:!:!:!:!:!!!!!!!!!:!:!,!,1,,,,i',!,!,!,':''',,,',,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,:11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111iii,„„ 01 11000 1
„,„„uun.111111111,
11111111' oil'',
cm 40,11P' ?',010,PIPPIPIRIVY11'&1)0111/1ffrdil0,1141.1", r ),Pifftimarfflii.gaireom, foffk irte /■p,(ova
nolo o onolohool
111100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000ono000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001000onoullounollon000001111
11111111
ww
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111
1111E1111 oonounin000n000no
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111....
mummummummonsummumo
111111111111
1000111ouno 111111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111000=
11111111111111111111"11" 111111111111111
1111111111111111
111111111111111111,
0111111a111(
'11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111,1111,111II.0
,,1'1111111111111111111,1(
m000uuuou000u000iIIIIIIIIIILo111111111111111111111111111IommoomliIl"""""""""""""""""""'"'IIIri0000vovIIIIIIII0000000hl
" rIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII"""""""""""""""""" """"ILIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIL ILIIIIIIIIIII,L1,1,1,
111(111111101111
un iiIi11111111
1","I''■';g'g':''Inun. 1111 111111111111 1..........floso 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 IIIIIIVIIIIII I 1
' humi,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,'Il 1 II II II 1 II II 1111111U 111111101111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
'''''11,1111111111111111111III111111161111111111111111111111111111111111111111111,,,,,,,,
IIIIIIIIIIIIII"""""""" """"""""""""""IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII'I I
1111111111111111111111111 ' 11111111111
AVOIMIWIffill■Ar aq
r„.
0
r
40.01MMENEIZIEF
83
1111(ell'3'11 e C C
DRIOR Y WORK R CO DAT ONS
The Lakes
Recreational
_ . �
Loop
& Connectivity
o
\\\\\F..rotf�\\\\\
Leri
\\ \\— `\�.
�\\\\\\\\ ��
Existing
Oso Parkway
FM 43 (Weber Road)
Cimarron Boulevard
4.13
Priority
Lipes Boulevard
Sun Wood Drive
CR 2444 (South Staples Street)
0.46
Priority
CR 2444 (South Staples Street)
Lipes Boulevard
Yorktown Boulevard
0.48
Opportunity
Cedar Pass Drive
Grand Junction Drive
Sun Wood Drive
1.2
Opportunity
Grand Junction Drive
Cedar Pass Drive
Wapentape Drive
0.37
Opportunity
Aaron Drive
Wapentape Drive
Acushnet Drive
0.53
Opportunity
Acushnet Drive
Wood Iron Drive
Middlecoff Drive
0.67
Opportunity
Middlecoff Drive
Acushnet Drive
Long Meadow Drive
0.42
Opportunity
St. Andrews Drive
Holly Road
Lonq Meadow Drive
0.82
Opportunity
Long Meadow Drive
St. Andrews Drive
Hunt Drive
0.58
Opportunity
Hunt Drive
Lonq Meadow Drive
Timbergate Drive
0.39
Opportunity
Timbergate Drive
_
Hunt Drive
Master Channel 32 Ditch
0.69
Opportunity
Northgate Drive
Timberqate Drive
Rivergate Drive
0.51
Opportunity
Rivergate Drive
Northgate Drive
Lipes Boulevard
0.11
Of# Stre��
3 . � �3
\ \ \ �\�
Tr�\\\� `�\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
\ � \
\\\\\\\\\\Fromm \ \\
� \� � \
_ � � .o.�\,\\\
ow t
� �
Priority
Schanen Ditch
Tiger Ditch
Oso Creek
2.97
Priority
Crossgate Ditch
Timbergate Drive
Oso Creek
1.8
Priority
Country Club Ditch
Schanen Ditch
Player Street
0.87
Priority
Trail followingOso Creek (North Bank)
Schanen Ditch
Crossqate Ditch
0.55
Opportunity
Trail following Oso Creek (North Bank)
Richter Ditch
Schanen Ditch
1.53
'Opportunity
Trail following Oso Creek (South Bank)
Richter Ditch
South Oso Parkway
2.52
1 'III 1
46
41k,
11111111111111111111111111111111
1 1 111111 0111111111111111111100
11111111111111 1
11111111111111111111111111111 001111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111110111111
II, .000000000000000011111111111"
oot, 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
1111111111111111111111111111100
,,001,1,00,00,0„0000000000000000000000010,10000
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111,111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111110110101,11,1,1111111111
,'MOD
'1,H11111111),
111
111111111,
10000,0
1111111111 lt$,
04004 0001
gr ,' •
0
0
L 2
eft' •
4..y : _1
Cl) 1 4 IL ./. a)
/4, 44.914.
...,.. •
co
,/••
85
10-filkeE381(E)0C
11111111'1'1111111111111111111111111111111
VIII , 100100101111111111""-
l'oor vP4.01,61,11;1,10
11,111111,,,,11 1111111
III
aSeeenereee
HikeBikeCC
Om fetree% Facilities Schools
eEightimry Phu. Sctunul
'Y4nvafny lL'irl Ellemetteeery
CkeeecetedneGy Pe kIdea
Off Shona. Facilities U1111a Iq RquyGc
vn'Wr k EIXE9enreg P /%rP /�� II $10 L,eveekt
ee ee e, PhGmsrey Spectuddry
rtteom Oppeath.rn y IIVIIIIRVS Stood Nei&ew(Inch
1gIlWV'�li Paola Ceey Sereett CmnGwreenere
2 pAm,�ae IFW tThTn®ne Parka O ntinaf 4NP Node%
ErJ Cmg 9.4thee
P„..,A
44,4444444444444.4444444444444444444444444444444444444,444.444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444
44,444444444444444.444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444
44,444444444444444.444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444
44,444444444444444.444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444
44,444444444444444.444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444
44,444444444444444.444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444
44,444444444444444.444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444
44,444444444444444.444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444
44,444444444444444.444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444
I:11111 411k1.:1111111111:11111111111111111:1311111:111:1111111111111111111111111111111:11111111:11:111111111:11:1111:11:1111111111111:111:11,1111111111111111111:11:11:11:11:11:11:11:11:11:11:11:11:11:11:111:111:111:111:111:111:111:11111:11:111:111:111111111"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"'''''''''''''""1:11111111111111111111111EEEEE
1101111 111111 ::'"'111:1,11e1,1C1CJ11111!111,1,1111111111111111111111111111151111111111g111111111101111:,111111:111,11i1:11:11:111:11:11:1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111:1:1:1:1:111111111111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII::::::::::::::::::::111111111111111111111:1:1:1:1:1:1:1:1:1:1:1111111111111
11111 1111111111 III
1111111111111111111111,011,:!„.
11111111111111111111111111111111111111,1111111111j„„
.111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111■!11,
houn000n000noonon000nolhol
,0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000,1100,
11111111111111111111111111
11,11111111111,
111111111111:11:11
Padre Isand'
HikeBikeCC
On Street Facilities Schools
Pm School'
Priority r;;;2 Elementary
...kik Opportunity MddIi
Off Street Facilities WM High
A A A Em'seing MUD All Levels
44 44 k Priority Speciality
k Opportunity Starmwater Ortch
Parks City Street Centerlines
Maier Investment Parks Destination Nadas
tZ City Latins
111111111014
m000m000h000000000
m00000vomoilly
donomoon000n000nNuon000n000n000nolonon000n000n000n000n000n000nolvlor
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111110000000000000000000000000000000 111
100 71111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111'
lonon000nToolon000n000n000n000n000noloolouoluovou
'"""""""""" "''""l111111111111111111111111111'111","1
Illo
,011111111"111111111on
10000000(f',,,'Iy
1111111111111 111100000000000
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111vuo,or
0;00001.00000000000000000000060000'
0011111111000000111110000P1
9111111INIMu'i,
8
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
I
1111 00
11111111111111111111111:111111111111
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111.1
.,1,1,111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
1 11 1 1111111
A
111111 1111
The Corpus Christi Integrated Community Sustainability Plan (ICSP) described existing
and potential hike /bike trails and on- street bicycle connections with a focus on connections
between the Saratoga Boulevard/Weber Road and Flour Bluff Destination Nodes and
between the Flour Bluff and Six Points Destination Nodes. Additionally, connecting Padre
Island to Flour Bluff is a long -range opportunity that should be considered. According to
the ICSP, potential facilities do not represent all possibilities; rather, they are limited to
locations or connections considered to have particular promise based on a preliminary
analysis of maps and aerial imagery as well as field observations. Some of the key
potential opportunities described by the ICSP include:
Connecting Six Points and Flour Bluff
The primary connections between the Six Points and Flour Bluff Nodes are via Ayers
Street, Ocean Drive, and Ennis Joslin Road. The various existing trail segments along the
Ocean Drive corridor should be connected into one continuous pathway. However, on-
road connectivity enhancements are discussed on the Corridor Mobility Concepts: Ocean
Drive sheet. An additional connection needs to be identified from the Ennis Joslin /SPID
intersection to either the existing trail along Paul Jones Avenue or to the proposed trail
along the west side of the Cayo del Oso. Further, restoration of the Oso Railroad trestle
located on the Holly Road corridor to serve as a trail bridge should be prioritized.
Connecting Saratoga/Weber and Flour Bluff
There are numerous connection opportunities between the Saratoga/Weber and Flour
Bluff Nodes, including several drainage ways and the Oso Creek Green Belt. Again, the
best connection across Oso Creek or the Cayo del Oso would be the rehabilitation of the
existing Oso Railroad trestle bridge. Two of the most promising drainage ways alongside
which a trail might be developed to connect these two nodes are highlighted on the map
on the reverse page.
ALA,
FfikelBikeCC
The old (closed) Holly Road roadbed in Flour Bluff
One specific location identified for potential new off-road recreational opportunities is the
old Holly Road roadbed in Flour Bluff. Recreational amenities and picnic facilities could
be provided in Flour Bluff on the eastern shore of the Cayo del Oso, at the terminus of
the existing Oso railroad trestle. Key implementation steps may include re- grading the
existing roadway, removing sections of deteriorating pavement, and installing interpretive
signage and amenities such as picnic tables and trash cans.
Connecting Padre Island to Flour Bluff
The John F. Kennedy Memorial Causeway is the sole means of connection between
Padre Island and Flour Bluff. The height of the bridge and lack of a dedicated bicycle lane
prevents any safe means of crossing. While the latest improvements to the causeway
have provided a wide shoulder that could be used for bicycle traffic, the bridge is still
the main obstacle. Padre Island itself has a network of streets that can support a bicycle
network as illustrated on the HikeBikeCC map. However, the bicycle network would
remain a closed loop until such time as to address the crossing at the causeway bridge.
Rails to Trails
Conduct a full analysis to assess the following abandoned rail lines for potential trial
development:
• Union Pacific Railroad: 1.35 miles, from Agnes Street to West Broadway Street.
• Kansas City Railroad: 1.40 miles, along Kinney Street extension, from Agnes Street
to Blucher Park.
9
iliVIkefl3i114c, -CC",
"I I I Hitititititiltitititititititititititifili111111 u"'
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiill
111110000000000000000000 lill
11'11 Iiiiiiiihfillfi0
i6'
MP
LE
The next steps to implementing additional
Hlke /bike trails in the City are:
implement identified priority
action items from MobilityCC
and the Corpus Christi Strategic
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
including:
Phase 1 projects of the Priority Network
Recommendations of HikeBikeCC in
coordination with the Parks and Recreation
Department.
Development of additional Bay Trail
segments to connect Oso Creek
and Bill Witt Parks to the Bay Trail
Phase III
Adaptive re -use of the Oso Railroad
trestle for hiking, biking, and fishing,
with connections in the Southside
and Flour Bluff
Determine the construction cost per linear foot
of trail segments from data supplied by the
Engineering Services Department.
Scope the appropriate time lines for
construction.
Data Collection and Study
Conducting the full analysis as described in
methodology portion above to assess and
prioritize trails to be developed based on
connectivity and additionally by recreation.
Partnerships
Additionally, work with established partner
agencies, such as the Metropolitan
Planning Organization (MPO), the Regional
Transportation Authority (RTA), and the Texas
Department of Transportation (TXDOT), to
PL.
identify any potential trail corridors, assessing
the feasibility of partner recommended trail
construction, and identifying the issues, costs,
priorities, and potential funding sources.
Identify any potential partner agencies and
collect any trail recommendations, feedback,
and overall input.
In collaboration with the local cycling
community and hosted by the Metrpolitian
Planning Organization (MPO), integrate the
Coastal Bend Recreational Road Bike Routes
into MobilityCC.
Funding
Aggressively pursue funding opportunities
which may include Transportation Enhancement
funds; Recreational Trails Program funds;
Transportation, Community, and System
Preservation Program (TCSP); Congestion
Mitigation for Air Quality (CMAQ); Texas Parks
& Wildlife Department (TPWD) Grants; Bonds;
Active Living/Transportation grants; private
donations or sponsorships; and City general
funds.
Partner with other agencies and organizations
to identify funding opportunities and expand
the trails network and identifying funding
opportunities. Potential partners include: the
MPO; Community Redevelopment Areas/
Agencies (CRA's); School Board; Department
of Education; Colleges and Universities;
Community Traffic Safety Team (CTST);
Bicycle and Walking Advocacy Organizations;
Trails Organizations; Parks, Recreation,
and Waterfront Organizations; Public Health
Departments, Organizations, and Task Forces;
Chambers of Commerce; Transit Agencies;
Utilities Companies and Systems; Railroads;
Port Authority; Department of Environmental
Protection; and Branches of the U.S. Military.
IIiiU VIIII iuk F.
(This page is intentionally left blank for the reader's notes)
%
rksr ire; °"
ul
I� �� ��r
,y
W !i 1 N1 IiN bt; NIIV
1 /�f /v,,,,l %� 1//�% �i)o' ��d , ,
%�i ,i •, r % /irY„ J / �r,i)
k�¢�
i % �r, �t )G �/�
,
tai /%
dI Ill " """ N
/ i7I' / � %/%,, % " /J / vr )V y ,,, y , /r l% „ / _... „»Y
i , / ywr ,.r% t° J' / ; ry 77/1/
/
u,JiI111dab nisi
What is a Modern Roundabout?
A modern roundabout is a circular
intersection with design features that
promote safe and efficient traffic flow.
Vehicles travel counterclockwise around a
raised center island; entering traffic yields
the right - of-way to circulating traffic. Slow
speeds are maintained by the deflection
of traffic around the center island and the
relatively tight radius of the roundabout
and exit lanes. Drivers approaching a
roundabout must reduce their speeds, look
for potential conflicts with vehicles already
in the circle, and be prepared to stop for
pedestrians and bicyclists.
Roundabouts help to meet the sustainability
goals for Corpus Christi by improving the
efficiency of traffic flow by slowing vehicles
but keeping them moving, thereby reducing
vehicle delays, fuel consumption, and air
and noise pollution while creating a safer
environment for pedestrians and bicyclists.
xa, »nC
noodway
131...yde treatment
i td
11a o rr
Accessbie
pedenian
crossulg
Features of a modern roundabout.
�� ii K�7rr /rira r"
td/Z2ZYZ Mat'
A roundabout can safely accommodate buses (left) and have only 8 vehicle conflict points
compared to conventional intersections, which have 32 (right), many of which are at high speeds
and high impact angles.
R.
[VI Ill llxa C ncPp0
Roundabout Benefits
Lives saved
• Up to a 90% reduction in fatalities
• 76% reduction in injury crashes
• 30 -40% reduction in pedestrian
crashes
• 75% fewer conflict points than four -way
intersections
Slower vehicle speeds (under 30 mph)
• Allows drivers more time to judge and
react to other cars or pedestrians
• Accommodates older and novice
drivers
• Reduces the severity of crashes
• Creates safer environment for
pedestrians and bicyclists
Efficient traffic flow
• 30 -50% increase in traffic capacity
• Improved traffic flow for intersections
that handle a high number of left turns
• Reduced need for storage lanes
Money saved
• No signal equipment to install and
repair equates to an estimated
average savings of $5,000 per year
in electricity and maintenance costs
• Service life of a roundabout is 25
years (vs. the 10 -year service life of
signal equipment)
Community benefits
• Calms traffic
• Safer pedestrian environment
• Reduces fuel consumption as well as
air and noise pollution
• Creates a safer pedestrian
environment
• Establishes a landmark identity and
enhances sense of place
w+u� 5�`•fifibwi5
Roll iin�
Non - Motorized Users
• Pedestrians must consider only one
direction of conflicting traffic at a time.
• Bicyclists have options for negotiating
roundabouts, depending on their skill
and comfort level.
• Pedestrians with vision impairments
may have trouble finding crosswalks
and determining when /if vehicles have
yielded at crosswalks.
• Bicycle ramps at roundabouts have the
potential to be confused with pedestrian
ramps.
Safety
• Reduce crash severity for all users,
allow safer merges into circulating
traffic, and provide more time for all
users to detect and correct for their
mistakes or the mistakes of others due
to lower vehicle speeds.
• Fewer overall conflict points and no left-
turn conflicts.
• Increase in single - vehicle and fixed -
object crashes compared to other
intersection treatments.
• Multilane roundabouts present more
difficulties for individuals with blindness
or low vision due to challenges in
detecting gaps and determining that
vehicles have yielded at crosswalks.
Operations
• May have lower delays and queues
than other forms of intersection control.
• Can reduce lane requirements between
intersections, including bridges
between ramp terminals.
• Creates possibility for adjacent signals
to operate with more efficient cycle
lengths where the roundabout replaces
a signal that is setting the controlling
cycle length.
• Equal priority for all approaches can
reduce the progression for high volume
approaches.
• Cannot provide explicit priority to
specific users (e.g. trains, emergency
vehicles, transit, pedestrians) unless
supplemental traffic control devices are
provided.
Access Management
• Facilitate U -turns that can substitute for
more difficult mid - block left turns.
• May reduce the number of available
gaps for mid -block unsignalized
intersections and driveways.
i0 0i0 It n '1C:: is
(g 0d44100;
Environmental Factors
• Noise, air quality impacts, and fuel • Possible impacts to natural and cultural
consumption may be reduced. resources due to greater spatial
• Little stopping during off -peak periods. requirements at intersections.
Traffic Calming
• Reduced vehicular speeds. • More expensive than other traffic
• Beneficial in transition areas by calming treatments.
reinforcing the notion of a significant
change in the driving environment.
Space
• Often requires less queue storage • Often requires more space at
space on intersection approaches and the intersection itself than other
thus can allow for closer intersection intersection treatments.
and access spacing.
• Reduces the need for additional right -
of -way between links of intersection.
• More feasibility to accommodate
parking, wider sidewalks, planter strips,
wider outside lanes, and/or bicycle
lanes on the approaches.
Operation & Maintenance
• No signal hardware or equipment • May require landscape maintenance.
maintenance.
Aesthetics
• Provide attractive entries, centerpieces,
or landmarks in communities.
• Used in tourist or shopping areas
to separate commercial uses from
residential areas.
• Provide opportunity for landscaping
and /or gateway feature to enhance the
community.
• May create a safety hazard if hard
objects are placed in the central island
directly facing the entries.
Mo ttlliiity Concepts
Criteria for Consideration of a Roundabout
Roundabout should be considered under a wide range of conditions but may be
particularly advantageous for:
• Intersections with a high crash rate or a higher severity of crashes
• Replacement of all -way stops
• Replacement of signalized intersections, especially where unbalanced
movements cause inefficiency
• Replacement of two -way stops when side street delay becomes excessive
• Intersections with complex geometry, skew angles, or more than four
approaches
• Rural intersections with high -speed approaches
• Freeway interchange ramp terminals
• Intersections with high volume of U -turn movements
• Closely spaced intersections with widening constraints
• Transitions or "gateways" from high speed to lower speed areas
• Locations where aesthetics are important
Primary Design Considerations
• Provide slow entry speeds and consistent speeds through the roundabout by
using deflection.
• Provide the appropriate number of lanes and lane assignment to achieve
adequate capacity, lane volume balance, and lane continuity.
• Provide smooth channelization that is intuitive to drivers and results in
vehicles naturally using the intended lanes.
• Provide adequate accommodation for the design vehicles. Truck aprons
are often used to accommodate the turning needs of larger vehicles
while maintaining a narrower circulating roadway and providing adequate
deflection for passenger vehicles.
• Design to meet the needs of pedestrians and cyclists.
• Provide appropriate sight distance and visibility for driver recognition of the
intersection and conflicting users.
Project Implementation Steps
The intersection of Morgan Avenue and Baldwin Boulevard in Corpus Christi has been
identified as a potential candidate location for a single lane roundabout in conjunction
with the concept planning completed for this Destination Node. A roundabout would
replace the existing traffic signal and could be implemented in conjunction with road diet
projects on both Morgan Avenue and Baldwin Boulevard (converting those roadways
to have one through lane in each direction, a two -way center left turn lane, and bicycle
lanes). The goal of these projects would be to make the corridors friendlier to all modes
of travel, particularly non - motorized modes. The roundabout would help to improve
traffic flow and safety at the intersection while making crossing the intersection easier
and safer for pedestrians and bicyclists.
For roundabout feasibility, See Appendix.
" 111 1'1110111e.
mrlar to that proposed for the Morgan - Baldwin intersectisn, the
"•e Street and Oak Street in Asheville, NC was converterfrom a
dptright 7 sifigle lane roundabout (bottom right). View of
" ndabout in Asheville, NC from.the,other direction (left).
Si
iilR`ra1 —!
'�.``'� �. Il.•x�iwn
11111n film
•■ uI..11.0.
09 I
97
Implementation
Baldwin / Morgan Roundabout
To implement a roundabout at the Morgan /Baldwin intersection, the following steps
should be followed:
1. Complete a roundabout feasibility study (see list of potential elements on next
page).
2. Look for opportunities to piggyback onto other projects, such as resurfacing of
the corridors Resurfacing projects present an ideal time to restripe to implement a
road diet along the corridor, which is recommended for both the Morgan Avenue
and Baldwin Boulevard corridors to facilitate the use of a single lane roundabout.
3. Identify potential funding sources, which could include Transportation
Enhancement funds, safety funds such as Hazard Elimination Program (HEP), and
Congestion Mitigation for Air Quality (CMAQ) funds.
4. Implement a policy to evaluate roundabouts at intersections for all new
construction, reconstruction, or when capacity improvements are being
considered. For example, the New York State Department of Transportation has
a policy that roundabouts must be considered in such situations, and if feasible,
should be the Department's preferred alternative due to the proven substantial
safety and operational benefits.
ti
`
111111111111111111
ihvit
d
i11
II
I I�III'
onjotoottotom
liiiiViiViViViViViViViNi
MoW
Next Page: Concept for a single lane roundabout at the intersection of Morgan Avenue and Baldwin Boulevard
it
III to iiit Concept
Road Diets
A "road diet" describes a project to "skinny up" a street when it has an unnecessary
number of through lanes. The removal of unneeded travel lanes from a roadway provides
space that can then be used for other uses and travel modes. The most common road
diet projects involve converting a four -lane undivided roadway to a two -lane roadway
(one travel lane in each direction plus a two -way center left turn lane) by removing
one travel lane in each direction. The remaining space is most commonly used to add
bicycle lanes, but it can also be used for on- street parking, landscaping, or sidewalks. A
center landscaped median or refuge islands can be used in place of the center two -way
left turn lane in locations where driveways are uncommon or absent. Road diets help to
meet the sustainability goals for Corpus Christi by fostering non - motorized travel modes
through reduced vehicle speeds and safer conditions for bicyclists and pedestrians and
reducing total impervious cover and the associated deleterious environmental impacts.
Because only under - utilized travel lanes are removed, motor vehicle traffic typically
moves along a road dieted corridor with similar efficiency and travel time. The cost of
a road diet project can be minimized by simply re- striping a roadway during its normal
maintenance cycle. No right -of -way acquisition is required for most projects.
Road Diet Benefits
• Lower vehicle speed variability (i.e., more calm and less aggressive traffic flow)
due to the inability to change lanes or pass along a three -lane roadway compared
to a four -lane undivided roadway.
• Improved mobility and access, particularly for non - motorized modes:
• A three -lane cross section
produces fewer conflict points
between vehicles and crossing
pedestrians.
• Pedestrians cross one direction
and one lane of traffic at a time
using median refuge islands,
which can be provided in many
places.
PL
91111,1111,1111,01,11 „111,11,
lilll'�irma,;lwll
• A conversion from four to three lanes may allow the creation of
designated bike lanes.
• Reduced number of collisions and injuries, which generally results from:
• A reduction in speed variability along the corridor.
• A decrease in the number of conflict points between vehicles
• Improved sight distance for the major street left turn vehicles.
• Improved livability and quality of life.
• The cost of a road diet project can be minimized by simply re- striping a
roadway during its normal maintenance cycle. No right -of -way acquisition is
required for most projects.
• There are generally no significant changes to traffic volumes on the road dieted
streets, which means that they do not result in a significant amount of diversion
to other streets.
• Road dieted streets generally continue to operate adequately without
significant queuing and operational impacts.
A road diet was completed on Edgewater Drive in Orlando, FL to convert it from four lanes (left) to three
lanes with bike lanes (right). The project helped spawn a new mixed -use project (multistory building shown
in right photo), and has resulted in documented increases in pedestrian and bicycle use (23 and 30 percent,
respectively). Crash and injury rates along the corridor decreased by 34 and 68 percent, respectively, even
though traffic volumes only declined slightly from their pre - project level of approximately 20,000 vehicles
per day. Travel times on the corridor were only minimally affected, with an increase of 50 seconds in the AM
peak hour over 1.5 miles, and only 10 seconds in the PM peak hour. The project was viewed as a success
by both area residents and business owners, who, when surveyed following its completion, gave positive
feedback for 8 of 9 identified measures of effectiveness as to whether the project achieved its objectives.
11111 11 1111111111111111111111111111111111
Implementation
Criteria for Road Diet Implementation
Three -lane roadway sections with average daily traffic (ADT) volumes below 20,000
vehicles per day can generally be considered feasible for roadways, although
moderate ADT volumes of 8,000 -- 15,000 are preferred, particularly for a first road
diet within a community. Other factors and characteristics that may support road diet
implementation include:
• Evidence that the existing four -lane undivided roadway cross section may be
functioning as a "de facto" three -lane roadway (most of the through flow is in the
outside lane and the inside lane is used primarily for left turning traffic).
• High crash rates or high numbers of rear -end, sideswipe, and/or angle crashes
related to left turn and crossing vehicles.
• Transit corridors.
• Popular or essential bicycle routes /links.
• General interest in balancing the needs of the transportation system with the
interests of the surrounding community and the environment.
• General interest in creating a transportation facility that is an asset to the
community.
• Commercial reinvestment areas or economic enterprise zones.
• Historic streets or scenic roads.
• Entertainment districts or main streets.
Implementation Steps
To implement a road diet, the following steps should be followed:
1. Complete a road diet feasibility study (see list of potential elements). Feasibility
studies should be completed for any proposed road diet; facilities with existing
traffic volumes greater than 15,000 vehicles per day require more detailed study.
2. Look for opportunities to piggyback on other projects. Road diets are most
effectively implemented when a roadway is being resurfaced or reconstructed.
PLA
IhAotyy II Iv Ity
3. Identify potential funding sources, which could include Transportation
Enhancement funds, safety funds such as Hazard Elimination Program
(HEP), and Congestion Mitigation for Air Quality (CMAQ) funds.
4. Following completion of a road diet project, it is important to document
the results of the project by completing a follow -up study to document
actual traffic volumes, travel times, speeds, pedestrian and bicycle activity,
crashes, and public satisfaction. An "after" study may help to provide
justification for future road diet projects.
Candidate Road Diet Projects in Corpus Christi
wwwnww 1 Leopard St (N Port Ave N Upper Broadway)
worm* 2 Brownlee Blvd (Laredo S1 to Staples Si)
w wwwwa 3 Baldwin Blvd (Airport Rd to S Part Ave)
a� 4 • Morgan Ave (Airport Rd 10 5 Pori Ave)
+■0 5 Ayers 5) (Ocean Dr to S Pon Ave)
wwwwww 1 Santa Fe S1 (Ayers 5t to Roben Or
T - Goldner Rd (Greenwood Or to 5 Staple*. St)
ewe. 1 M[AniIe Rd (Ayers 51 to Ennis Joslin Rd)
owwwww 1 Violet Rd (1.37 to South of Stadia Lid
aowwe 10 4AcKintie Rd 047 to South of Haven Dr)
n
�YPrPn i( o"n'r
v, r €m
ra
IW
Application of the road diet criteria to roadways in the City of Corpus Christi yielded 90 preliminary candidates
for road diet implementation projects, as shown in the above graphic. Projects are not listed in priority.
111111111111111111111 1
R „.,h, :;WI 1,
Ayers Street
The Ayers Street corridor between Ocean Drive and Port Avenue is a strong
candidate roadway for a road diet project. This following highlights the characteristics
of two different sections and illustrates the opportunities available.
North Section (Ocean Drive to Baldwin Boulevard):
• Existing roadway section is a four -lane undivided roadway, 40 feet from curb
to curb.
• 2010 ADT < 10,000 (strong road diet candidate).
• Provides a direct connection to the "Six Points” area and its existing RTA Six
Points Station, as well as the Christus Spohn Hospital — Shoreline.
• Potential roadway section is three lanes (one travel lane in each direction
plus two -way center left turn lane) and bike lanes, 40 feet from curb to curb.
South Section (Baldwin Boulevard to Port Avenue):
• Existing roadway section is a five -lane section, including a two -way center left
turn lane and a 60 -foot curb to curb width.
• 2010 ADT = 16,500 (well within the traffic limits of a road diet, which is
typically < 20,000).
• Provides connections to Del Mar College East Campus, HEB Park,
Broadmoor Park, and the RTA Port -Ayers Station.
• Potential roadway sections:
• Alternative 1: two -lane divided roadway with raised median (and
left turn lanes as appropriate) and buffered bike lanes, 60 feet from
curb to curb.
• Alternative 2: two -lane divided roadway with raised median (and
left turn lanes as appropriate), buffered bike lanes, and on- street
parking on one side of the street.
• Alternative 2 could also be modified to include parking on both
sides of the street, if desired (to correspond to proposed mixed -
use or commercial development) but would require existing curbs
to be relocated, possibly through the use of inset parking with
redevelopment.
m l A i, , \ olllnillluty Concepts
(Existing)
Ayers St. -North of Baldwin Blvd.
9 r- B'nNwAW ' wlv�l pblmmr6 �..: ro m4
uw. O NOW x iM1 IN". Il.im f
der
tot It +,imll
111111111111111111111111111111111 111111111111
(Existing)
(Proposed)
Ayers St. -North of Baldwin Blvd.
1lmlxw Ilmumwrox NMI 164 QwMAMAI..
mm &s l &m Illn
mP
m.mwlwwm.,rc..m
RM.
(Proposed Alternative 1)
Ayers St. -South of Baldwin Blvd. Ayers St. -South of Baldwin Blvd.
III" -Po�N" y 'l [1
Wvuuim 'lUmma IR atolll 'I
hu�mrW �mm
Jot ILO* ,mmLoo Lwld mm and
0, soil
Aft i mmn
nom ilwm. p,m
0;10
mom m 11.11
�w m mom
(Proposed Alternative 2)
Ayers St. -South of Baldwin Blvd.
toe %WM loot IWO tot
oYIRRO WO. dm
Wm Wu 5nm
Lin MOW ILmm v 00.154
w�v
Co nFdor Con( ..q� J pt
Leopard Street / Annaville
Existing Conditions
Leopard Street in the Annaville area is a four -lane suburban roadway with four travel
lanes, inside curb and median, and outside flush shoulders with open drainage.
Existing development in this corridor is mostly commercial with a small amount of multi-
family residential. The corridor has a large number of driveways; many business have
multiple driveways or access points or undefined driveways wherein nearly the entire
frontage of the business functions as a driveway. There are many median breaks,
some of which have deceleration lanes. The intersections of Violet Road, Starlike Lane
and McKinzie Road are signalized. Sidewalks are intermittent and random. Pedestrian
crossing features are also intermittent and poorly placed from a safety and design
perspective. Although there are existing paved shoulders, they are not designated as
bicycle lanes. Existing corridor characteristics include:
• Four 12' travel lanes with a 30' landscaped median, with median breaks and turn lanes
• Variable shoulder width (up to 11')
• Approximately 100' of roadway, curb to curb
• Intermittent but few sidewalks along south side of roadway
• 14,000 average trips per day (2009)
• 45 MPH posted speed limit
• Numerous commercial/business driveways on both sides of the corridor
• Signalized intersections at major cross streets
Aerial
p
IIVIobility° Concepts
Issues
Leopard Street functions as a suburban arterial in the Annaville area. The corridor is
entirely automobile - oriented with few multi -modal features. The volume and density of
driveways and access points create a situation where the roadway functions conflict,
serving as both a regional through roadway and providing access to adjacent property. The
current driveway and median configurations also present safety issues - particularly for
pedestrians and bicyclists - by increasing potential conflict points for drivers and inducing
variability in driver behavior. As traffic volumes increase, and additional development
and redevelopment occurs in this corridor, these issues will create increasing amounts
of congestion, delays, and crashes within the area and corridor. In planning the future
configuration of this corridor, steps must be taken to ensure that its design supports the
desired form and vision of the greater Annaville Destination Node.
Recommendations
Leopard Street is entirely automobile- oriented within the Annaville Destination Node.
The realignment of this section of the corridor to include on- street parking and bicycle
and pedestrian features would foster pedestrian - oriented development within this Node.
Two alternatives are presented below; implementation decisions should be based on the
adjacent land uses and available right of way.
• Alternative 1 involves re- visioning this corridor with a more coherent urban form and
a more defined urban edge created by locating buildings closer to the street. The
recommended roadway section would be two, 11 -foot travel lanes in each direction, and
a 22 -foot median with controlled directional, or full, openings at appropriate locations,
The roadway would also have a 5 -foot bicycle lane, with a 3 -foot striped buffer between
the bicycle lane and an 8 -foot, on- street, parallel parking area. Sidewalks with tree
wells for landscaping and street furniture would extend from the parking to the building
frontage. Sidewalks in this area would be a minimum of 6 feet, but would ideally be
8 to 15 feet wide. The curb to curb distance for this alternative is 98 feet, excluding
sidewalks. This alternative should generally be accommodated in the existing 100 feet
from edge of pavement to edge of pavement. This alternative does include inside and
outside curbs, and would require a closed drainage system (curb and gutter).
• Alternative 2 was developed to accommodate areas where less right -of -way is available
and the curb to curb width of the roadway needs to be reduced. This alternative also
includes four i1 -foot travel lanes and the 5 -foot bicycle lane, but reduces the median
width to 8 feet and eliminates the buffer and the on street parallel parking reducing
the curb to curb width to 62 feet. As in Alternative 1, this alternative would require curb
and gutter. Sidewalks with tree planters would extend from the curb to the building
frontage.
• Consideration and incorporation of mid -block crossings to provide safer pedestrian
access across Leopard Street should also be included under both alternatives.
10 KilobiHty Concepts
Implementation Steps
1. Incorporate the vision for the Leopard Street corridor in planning for
the Annaville Destination Node, including the creation of any land use
or zoning overlays associated with this destination node. Consider the
following design elements:
a. Assessing the need for on- street parking
b. Limiting or eliminating driveway access to the street
c. Implementing landscaping and intersection treatment design guidelines
d. Establishing driveway design guidelines
e. Making provisions for future transit development
f. Requiring bicycle parking and providing associated design guidelines
2. Conduct a project development /feasibility study for Leopard Street that
incorporates the desired roadway type(s) and includes the following scope
elements:
a. Identification of preferred alternative
b. Coordination with the MPO and area stakeholders
c. Creation of design guidelines for landscaping, signage and roadway markings
d. Creation of design guidelines for incorporating transit stops or pull -out bays
e. Identification of crosswalk locations and types
f. Identification of median openings and types
3. Coordinate with MPO and TxDOT as appropriate to begin programming for
recommended modifications through various potential funding programs,
including: safety funds, enhancement funds, general roadway funds, and
local funds.
4. Prioritize the recommended reconfiguration of the Leopard Street
corridor in the Annaville Destination Node through the MPO process for
federal funding eligibility, if applicable.
5. Design and construct improvements opportunistically as funding
becomes available, or in coordination with standard resurfacing projects.
6. In the interim, for additional development or redevelopment in this
project area, consider limiting driveway access and driveway widths,
requiring cross - access easements, and eliminating or retrofitting existing
driveways to enhance safety for all users. Incorporation or completion
of the currently intermittent sidewalk should be prioritized as funding
becomes available or as a required part of future development projects
along the corridor.
Existing Photos
The existing Leopard Street corridor between Violet Road and McKinzie Road.
r //ir /o/YM% r /% 1/
dll[go,„!„:4 b11,41 1,111111111111il 'oil
11 II II 011
).))1
'Ili$11)lill‘ (1111 1411,frie)etitill1111111111 111 111 11
tvtmyiholIltIIIII'llill'il'I'llIll1'1'1'I'll'I'I'llIll1'1'1'1'1'1'1'1'1'1'1'1'I'llilliill000ll0000000llotIIIIIIIIIIIINII,I,IlgIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIgl? 11)11t
NI' AAi0IIVV "I �i 1,11111111111111111111111111117'1111 0o0 0000. 00
o , 00 1110000000000000000110100000010000041000,0004001\110000010100 (II
01.0iiriA01,110001!IIIIITtll ic, itih..,.,,,,,i
010,00,01.11,00 0 I 10 .0,), 0) .,0p.,,,h
0
r I� r����
����Ilt1
ffff � % %ff /ice
(i� mra
li�llu'f�i'fffff �� l'fffff'JJJlllllllllflllll%
l,ll IIII� % //�
J11 ��11
111111111l11�A
6/1 ill °, liilll u'D nce 1p ts
lrilrk IP °:1 III" 41' „.f Iqr I IIn
„w0
Leopard Street / Annaville
(Existing) Typical Section
l'111/1111/11111
r m
IPmmmmry# yWicallmu 11.4.0 tlarrmrtl
FA* Iliimry, II'. +rur �rrm
11111111111111111111111111111
P�ummmN �mmwl�ll �N�u�mrt III�'VnJw
Lou Il,mmov
Par
Illegtothwmon mD.E.Ary d Ilw,mmwmlmmmm
111111 111111111111
11111111111111111 i1
The existing Leopard Street corridor in the Annaville area has a suburban typical section with four 12 -foot
travel lanes, variable width paved shoulders (up to 11 feet) and a 30 -foot wide landscaped median with
median breaks and turn lanes.
Alternative 1
00 1 00H 00000000000011
G 1 &IGII1II
I� I1' 'V III 1 I111 1 1
1III IIll
lili �
rale
L'' lid
'
nn
Law
IlArdlon
Im84 Nev CA
mor
km9 1141IRw itom WOOS
ItAet !trw 11111 AN p PV, w mnorivftb.,
P
Alternative 1 would reconfigure Leopard Street using an urban typical section with narrower 11 -foot
travel lanes, a narrower 22 -foot raised and landscaped median, on- street parking, and buffered bicycle
lanes,
PL,
N 2 M 0 l) 't' „y Concepts
Alternative 2
i
l I l
� J) l l l � J J l
I
II V11 tki 111111111 J II lIlO 11
Sidlmitt IINka.� 7camM Viturv�
(Lune Lot Il.anm
411"
ku4 It44'44,u
R
hod nnxau
Itamt
lk'!
Lao
ORM11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111, -- ,, .....,� w,„ „,„ wni610 A0/WWI _. «rnoaoam
Alternative 2 is a variation of the urban typical section presented in Alternative 1, but would apply in
locations with constrained right -of -way where a narrower curb -to -curb width is needed. This section
narrows the median to 8 feet (between intersections) and eliminates the on- street parking and bicycle
lane buffering.
Example Photos
(1) Four lane divided roadway with on- street parking in Boulder, CO. (2) Four lane divided roadway
with narrow median and bike lanes in University Place, WA. (3) Four -lane divided roadway with bike
lanes and signalized mid -block pedestrian crosswalk in Lake Worth, FL. (4) Sidewalk along four -lane
divided roadway with on- street parking in Del Mar, CA.
.113
oIbillt
Ceur T a c.;8 °„ r Concept:
Ocean Drive
(
Louisiana
Aerial
PLAN
Mobility Concept
Existing Conditions
Ocean Drive between Louisiana Parkway and Ennis Joslin Road is a four -lane urban
arterial with a landscaped median, bicycle lanes, sidewalk on the south side and
intermittent sidewalk on the north side. The Ocean Drive /Shoreline Drive corridor runs
along the Corpus Christi Bay through the City of Corpus Christi. Existing development
is largely single family residential between Airline Road and Ennis Joslin Road, with
some commercial development at the Ennis Joslin intersection; there are also several
parks located on the north side of the roadway. Heading downtown along Ocean Drive,
the intensity and density of existing development increases between Ennis Joslin and
Louisiana Parkway, with more multi - family residential and hotel uses, particularly between
Airline Road and Doddridge Road. There are 5 parks on the north side of Ocean Drive
within this section of the corridor. Existing corridor characteristics include:
• Four 12' travel lanes with a 10' landscaped median and 7' bike lanes along both
sides
• Approximately 67' of roadway, curb to curb
• 5' sidewalk along south side of roadway
• 12,200 to 18,400 average trips per day (2010)
• 45 MPH posted speed limit, Ennis Joslin Road to Robert Drive
• 40 MPH posted speed Robert Drive to Louisiana Parkway
• Provides direct access to 5 parks along Corpus Christi Bay
• Many residential driveways on both the north and south sides of the corridor
• Intersections with major arterials and collectors are signalized
• Connection from Texas A &M University Corpus Christi to Downtown via Shoreline
Drive
Issues
Ocean Drive functions as an urban boulevard, with scenic vistas of Corpus Christi Bay
and access to several bay side parks. Land use is largely single family residential. The
posted speed of 40 to 45 MPH is high for a residential area, and the wide lanes and
wide bicycle lanes visually encourage higher speeds. The number of driveways, the
high speeds, the lack of a demarcated buffer between the traffic and bike lanes, and the
intermittent use of the bike lanes for on- street parking make this corridor challenging
for even the most experienced cyclists. The only continuous sidewalk is on the south
side of the roadway, thus creating the need for pedestrian crossings to destinations on
the north side, such as the parks. Additionally the sidewalk is immediately adjacent to
the roadway, and while the bicycle lanes do provide some buffer, the high speed of the
roadway generally makes walking adjacent to the roadway somewhat uncomfortable
for pedestrians. Bicycle lane markings are present but are widely spaced at about %
mile. Visually, the wide bicycle lane looks like a shoulder or parking area to motorists
unfamiliar with the area or with the bicycle lane markings.
II VIII II
r Ill r
Ocean Drive
Recommendations
Ocean Drive has bicycle and pedestrian features, but the existing roadway
volumes and speeds, as currently designed, creates potential safety issues
for bicyclists. The recommendations for this corridor focus on making these
facilities safer and more appealing for bicyclists and pedestrians and include
two alternatives:
Alternative 1
Restripe the existing corridor to include the addition of buffered bicycle lanes,
This alternative generally only involves restriping the existing pavement. By
narrowing the existing lanes to 11 feet, a 3 -foot buffer of diagonal striping can
be added on both sides of the roadway, leaving a 6 -foot bicycle lane. This
striped barrier will provide more distance between cyclists and motorists, and
will also potentially calm traffic by visually narrowing the road. The striped
buffer will also help to discourage those that may perceive the bicycle lane as
a parking area. There are also several intersections at which the southbound
bicycle lane is not continuous through the intersection, including Alta Plaza
Street, Doddridge Street, Robert Drive, Airline Drive, and Ennis Joslin Road.
Each of these intersections should be reconfigured to provide a continuous
bicycle lane for southbound bicycle traffic through the intersections. Alternative
1 represents a lower cost solution that might be implemented in the immediate
near term, or alternatively at the time of the next pavement overlay project on
Ocean Drive.
'P'1.,. 116 Mollollity Concepts
Alternative 2
Reconstruct the roadway to add a two -way cycle track on the north
side. A cycle track is an exclusive bike facility that has elements of
a separated path and on -road bike lane. A cycle track, while still
within the roadway, is physically separated from motor traffic and is
distinct from the sidewalk. This alternative will require relocation of
the existing median. One 12 -foot and one 11 -foot travel lane would
be constructed on the south side of the alignment for eastbound
traffic. On the other side of a 10 -foot median, an 11 -foot inside and
12 -foot outside lane would accommodate westbound traffic. A new
6 -foot median would then be constructed to separate the cycle track
from the arterial. The cycle track would be 10 feet wide and would be
striped and signed as a bi- directional path. The number of existing
driveways on the north side of the road may make this alternative
more challenging, as access to the properties would still need to be
provided. Furthermore, treatments would be necessary at both ends
of the two -way cycle track to ensure bicyclists would not ride on the
wrong side of the roadway beyond the termini of the cycle track, as
well as at signalized intersections to alleviate potential bicycle - vehicle
conflict points.
The addition /completion of a 6 -foot sidewalk on the north side is also
recommended. Existing development and right -of -way limitations
may present challenges, but completion of the sidewalk can be
incorporated into other projects or funded as a stand alone project.
Incorporate mid -block crossings (see BikelPedestrian Treatment sheet
included in another section of this Integrated Community Sustainability
Plan) to provide safer pedestrian access from residential areas on the
south to the parks along Corpus Christi Bay.
l'i' "' °III: °aIIIu'
)u
Implementation Steps
1. Conduct a project development/feasibility study for the Ocean Drive bicycle
facilities that includes:
a. Feasibility and cost/benefit analysis of potential cycle track (alternative
#2)
b. Identification of preferred alternative
c. Coordination with the MPO, area stakeholders, and any relevant bicycle/
pedestrian committees
d. Creation of design guidelines for landscaping, signage and roadway
markings
e. Creation of guidelines for incorporating transit stops or pull -out bays
2. Identify and design crossing improvements from sidewalks along the south
side to the park destinations on the north side, including potential options
such as median refuges and staggered crossings as discussed on the Bike/
Pedestrian Treatment sheet.
3. Coordinate with MPO and TxDOT as appropriate to begin programming for
needed modifications through various potential funding programs, including:
safety funds, enhancement funds, general roadway funds, and local funds.
4. Prioritize implementation of the proposed steps through the MPO process for
federal funding eligibility, if applicable.
5. Design and construct improvements as funding becomes available, or in
coordination with standard resurfacing projects.
lvv11Il)Vllllit ' 'omn eIIC
Existing Section
IVdrnnre
pines uuvufiduu, 1111 1114,60 IRA.
Lod Lkat Lee [11
IIi figh
(6,9.01111 „1611,”
The existing Ocean Boulevard corridor has an urban typical section with two 12 -foot travel lanes in each direction, 7 -foot bicycle lanes.,
and a 10-foot raised, landscaped median. There is a 5 -foot sidewalk at the back of curb on the south side of the road
Alternative 1
1011101010000000
Altemative 1 would involve a simple restnping of the existing pavement to narrow the ravel lanes to 11 feet, and provide a 3 -foot
striped buffer between the bicycle lane (narrowed slightly to 6 feet) and the travel) lanes. In addition„ a 6 -foot sidewalk is proposed to
be added to the north side of the road.,
Alternative 2
Qmm 1uw 1111
Rip
�1J000iUI 1111111 9IIW,. 11.bm0111,n
Alternative 2 involves the reconstruction of the corridor to prov de a median separa ed two -way cycle track on the north side of the
road, which would necessitate the existing trave lanes and median being shifted to the south Like Alternative 1 this alternative also
includes construction of a new 6 -foot sidewalk on the north side of the road..
IY00 o )11100lit',y' Concepts
pts
IIIIIIIIIDIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 11111111111
�VUV1111111111
Existing Photos
•
Example Photos
(Left) The existing Ocean Drive
typical section has two travel lanes
in each direction, a narrow me-
dian, and bicycle lanes. (Right)
There are several locations where
the southbound bicycle lane is not
continuous through an intersec-
tion, including this location at the
Ennis Joslin Road intersection.
LiFtmug
(1) Example of a buffered bicycle lane in Corpus Christi on Commodores Drive. (2) Example of a buff-
ered bicycle lane, Austin, TX. (3) Use of a green bicycle lane to highlight a conflict point between through
bicycle traffic and motor vehicle traffic turning right from a side street, Austin, TX. This treatment could
be used at locations along Ocean Drive such as Ennis Joslin Road and Airline Drive. (4) Example of a
median separated two -way cycle track, St. Petersburg, FL. (5) Graphic showing a median separated
two -way cycle track and the potential use of green pavement where driveway traffic would be required to
cross the cycle track.
120 MobilllitY Concepts
Old Brownsville Road
Aerial & Existing Conditions
Bear Ln.
•
Old Brownsville Road between South Padre Island Drive and Airport Road is a four -lane
arterial with a two -way center tum lane. Existing development is low- density in this corridor,
with few existing driveways or access points. On the south side of the roadway the Gabe
Lozano Sr. Golf Course extends from Airport Road to Home Road. There is a small amount of
residential development adjacent to the corridor at Home Road and scattered small industrial /
commercial uses along the rest of the corridor. The Del Mar College West Campus is adjacent
to the corridor on the north side at Airport Road. Existing corridor characteristics include:
• Four 12' -15' travel lanes with a 14' center tum lane
• Approximately 68' of pavement, curb to curb
• 5' sidewalks along both sides of roadway
• Approximately 120' feet from back of sidewalk to the back of sidewalk
• No bicycle lanes/trails
• 14,000 average trips per day (2009)
• 45 MPH posted speed limit
• Served by Transit Route #16 between Enterprise Parkway and Horne Road
• Provides direct access to Del Mar College West Campus
• Provides access to West Oso High School via Bear Lane
• Provides access to West Oso and JFK Elementary Schools via Clif Maus Road
• Provides access to the VA outpatient Clinic and the Employment Center at SPID
• Few Driveways or signalized intersections
121 Mobility 4 .ncepts
-u
r—
n
z
Issues
In its current form, the Old Brownsville Road corridor is very auto - oriented. There is little
need for the existing two -way center left turn lane, as there are few existing driveways.
Other than its main entrance, the golf course fronts the roadway for approximately half
of the south side of the corridor and should not need additional access. The existing high
speed arterial traffic on the corridor creates concerns for bicyclist or pedestrian crossings
and there are no existing bicycle facilities in the corridor. Five foot sidewalks are present on
both sides of the roadway, but there is little landscaping and few pedestrian amenities. The
concept plan for this Destination Node identifies the potential for residential development
both north and south of Old Brownsville Road, integrated with the existing and potential
future employment opportunities and mixed used development between Old Brownsville
Road and Bear Lane. Principal needs for this corridor include:
• Expanding multi -modal opportunities
• Controlling access and maintain roadway function
• Creating safe crossing points for pedestrians /cyclists
• Enhancing landscaping and livability features
The incorporation of a 14 -foot wide median would necessitate that access to all
unsignalized roadways and driveways be limited to directional left turns (i.e., left turns
from Old Brownsville Road, but no left turns permitted from the side street), since 14 feet
is not a sufficient width to store a vehicle in the median in the middle of a two -stage left
turn from a side street. In addition, the speed limit along the corridor may warrant being
lowered as development occurs and the character of the corridor changes over time; the
narrower lane widths recommended would help to achieve lower speeds.
Recommendations
The current low level of development in this corridor provides a significant opportunity
to enhance the current roadway for all users and incorporate complete street elements
while maintaining the current arterial function for automobiles. The addition of multi -modal
features and enhancements, in conjunction with strategic access planning, could provide
more transportation choices while simultaneously providing relatively high speed arterial
connectivity for local and regional travelers. Recommendations for this corridor include:
• Addition of a landscaped median: There is little need for the existing two way center
turn lane under current conditions. The addition of a landscape median will provide
opportunities to:
• Control access points, turn lanes and driveways
• Provide opportunities for pedestrian refuges for mid -block crossings, and intersection
crossings
• Provide traffic calming by visually narrowing the corridor
• Enhance the corridor for all users.
• Limit access points and driveways: There are currently few access points and driveways
along this corridor. By limiting the driveway or intersection spacing and requiring
cross access easements, the number of potential turning movements will be reduced,
maintaining the arterial function of the corridor and increasing safety for motorists and
other users of the roadway.
• Narrow the travel lanes and restripe to include a bicycle lane in both directions
• Incorporate the planned multi -use trail on the north side of the roadway, instead of
the south, with appropriate safe crossings, to provide additional access to Del Mar
College West Campus and the potential future development as identified in the
concept plan for the Destination Node.
Conoer
Implementation Steps
1. Develop an overlay district for this Destination Node to include the Old Brownsville
Road corridor
a. Include standards for access, distance, spacing, and type
b. Require cross- access easements for adjacent uses
c. Include design guidelines for landscaping, street amenities, and driveway
placement
d. Coordinate with RTA on future transit needs including pads for shelters or pull
out bays
2. Begin Project Development or Feasibility study to assess the need for /feasibility of:
a. Addition of a landscaped median
b. Location /type of appropriate turn lanes
c. Location of mid -block crossings for pedestrians and bicyclists
d. Improvements to the existing crossings at Clif Maus Drive, Navigation /Horne
Road, and Bear Lane
e. Improvements to the existing intersection of Old Brownsville Road and Airport
Road
f. Access to Del Mar College West Campus for bicyclists and pedestrians
3. Coordinate with MPO/TxDOT to begin programming for needed improvements
through various potential funding programs, including: safety funds, enhancement
funds, and general roadway funds.
4. Prioritize the implementation of the proposed steps through the MPO process for
federal funding eligibility.
5. Design and construct improvements as funding becomes available, or in
partnership with private interests who propose development projects along the
corridor.
Existing Section
rpg r77% 77 7J 777 777777737-4r27,717,',
lid )OH
Alternative Section
110 .1111.40
11111111111 1,11,1■I0,
oquudhu
The exist ng Old Brownsvi le Road corridor has an The proposed altemative would provide a raised,
urban typical section with two travel lanes in each landscaped median, narrower 11 -foot travel lanes
direction and a continuous two -way left tum lane. and bicycle lanes, as well as a shared -use path on
Existing 5 -foot sidewalks are set back nearly 20 feet the south side.
from the edge of curb.
123
Existing Photos
The existing 5 -lane Old Brownsville Road section between SPID and Airport Drive.
Example Photos
�I
m
1
(1) Example four -lane divided arterial roadway with bike lanes, Chapel Hill, NC. (2) Example four -lane
divided arterial roadway with bike lane and adjacent off - street shared -use path. Providing both on- street
and off- street facilities allows bicyclists to choose the facility that is most appropriate for their use and
comfort level. (3) Example four -lane divided arterial roadway with adjacent off - street shared -use path. (4)
Although this 6 -lane divided arterial roadway with bike lanes in Gainesville, FL has a 45 mph posted speed,
all travel lanes are 11 feet wide.
PLAN
124 Mobility nctpts
Lipes Boulevard
Aerial
r
1:f
k �;
f.. � t. " �.i- 4.
Ct 'l, ''''' x. s, 1
Existing Conditions
Lipes Boulevard is a two lane neighborhood collector with on- street parking between Cimarron
Boulevard and Yorktown Boulevard. Existing development is largely single family residential
in this corridor. Most homes face the neighborhood streets intersecting Lipes Boulevard; there
are few existing driveways or access points on Lipes Boulevard itself. Higher density multi-
family residential and some non - residential development exists at major intersections. There
are currently plans to extend Lipes Boulevard from Cimarron Boulevard to Airline Road. Lipes
Boulevard also provides access to Kaffie Middle School and Jones Elementary School, as
well as to Crossgate and Brockhampton Parks. Existing conditions along the Lipes Boulevard
corridor include:
• Two travel lanes with on- street parking (unmarked) allowed along both sides of the road
• Approximately 46' of pavement, curb to curb
• 5' sidewalks along both sides of roadway
• Approximately 68' feet from back of sidewalk to the back of sidewalk
• No bicycle lanes /trails
• 30 MPH posted speed limit
• Direct access to Kaffie Middle School and Jones Elementary School
• Access to Crossgate Park and Brockhampton Park
• Few driveways along Lipes Boulevard
• Signalized intersections with major arterial and collectors
• Planned extension of Lipes Boulevard from Cimarron Boulevard to Airline Road
12
Mobility Concepts
Issues
For the majority of the Lipes Boulevard corridor, the single family residential development
is accessed via side streets and does not front on the Lipes corridor itself. Overall,
Lipes Boulevard is a low volume, slow speed neighborhood or local collector with wide
lanes and on- street parking. Since the residential units do not generally front on Lipes
Boulevard, there is a potential opportunity to provide bicycle lanes in place of the existing
on- street parking, which is likely under utilized except for areas around Kaffie Middle
School and Jones Elementary School. Using lower volume, slower speed collector roads
to provide bicycle facilities is a good way to provide safer multi -modal access to cyclists
of varying degrees of experience and confidence. Most cities do not have specific written
policies that address whether parking is allowed within designated on- street bicycle
lanes, however, in order to address the potential conflict between on- street parking and
the proposed bicycle lanes in this area and in other similar situations, the creation of such
a policy should be considered.
• There are several options for addressing this bicycle /parking conflict, including:
• Modifying the on- street parking
• Removing the parking on one or both sides
• Time- restricted parking
• Restriping to provide both parking and bicycle lanes
• Removal of bicycle lanes in the section where on- street parking is necessary
(sharrow markings could be used in these areas).
The appropriate solution depends on many factors and should be determined on a
case by case basis with input from facility users and stakeholders. In the case of Lipes
Boulevard, and other similar corridors in the city, the partial or complete removal of on-
street parking, in combination with other strategies such as sharrows, could provide
Tower -cost opportunities for enhanced bicycle access with only limited impact to existing
arterial traffic routes.
Recommendations
The current configuration of the residential development along the Lipes Boulevard
corridor offers an opportunity to incorporate bicycle lanes within the existing pavement
limits. The addition of bicycle lanes on Lipes Boulevard may also provide additional
opportunities for bicycle access to Kaffie Middle School and Jones Elementary School,
thereby promoting "Safe Routes to School." Using other local streets, a bicycle route
could be developed from the Airline Road /Lipes Boulevard nexus to the Weber Road/
Saratoga Boulevard Destination Node as a pilot project. Several potential routes exist,
including: Lipes Boulevard to Sunwood Drive to Cedar Pass Drive to Grand Junction
Drive to Aaron Drive to Acushnet Drive, which would fall within the Weber Road /Saratoga
Boulevard Node. Recommendations for this corridor include:
• Designating buffered bicycle lanes and landscaping on the Lipes Boulevard Corridor
• Recommended Alternative #1 includes complete removal of on- street parking and
replacing with buffered bicycle lanes.
• Recommended Alternative #2 includes retaining the on street parking on one side, which
may be appropriate near areas such as Kaffie Middle School and Jones Elementary
School. Bicycle lanes are provided, with the bicycle lane buffered on the side providing
on- street parking. Curb bulb -outs into the parking lane are recommended at street
corners to narrow the cross section of the street.
• Designating addition of bicycle lanes or shared lane markings ( "sharrows ") on connecting
corridors to provide bicycle access via neighborhood collectors to various destinations.
• Incorporating bicycle facilities into the planned Lipes Boulevard Extension, as well as
into any potential future development along this corridor or within the Airline Road,
Rodd Field Road, or Yorktown Boulevard corridors.
126 Mob '6( C loop ts
Implementation Steps
1. Conduct a project development/feasibility study for a pilot bicycle route project
along the Lipes Boulevard corridor that includes:
a. Developing guidelines and procedures for establishing criteria for on- street
parking modifications related to new /existing bicycle lanes. The guidelines
should also outline procedures in the selection of streets for new bicycle lanes.
Implement the guidelines along corridors with bicycle lane /on- street parking
conflicts on a case -by -case basis
b. Coordinating with area stakeholders and bicyclists
c. Coordinating with the MPO and any relevant bicycle /pedestrian committees
d. Designing guidelines for landscaping and driveway placement
e. Identifying other future routes and connections to area destinations, parks, and
transit stops
2. Coordinate with MPO to begin programming for needed, identified modifications
through various potential funding programs, including: safety funds, enhancement
funds, general roadway funds, and local funds.
3. Prioritize implementation of the proposed steps through the MPO process for
federal funding eligibility, if applicable.
4. Design and construct improvements as funding becomes available or in
coordination with standard resurfacing projects
Existing Section
ddMid 0.1101010101000
N I1,1
uqHME
Nugll'.oimio,
CHI
11,4. 11 Pet,
MN
Alternative 1
0.A& Wn 10.06
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
Alternative 1 would eliminate on- street parking and
reconfigure the space with buffered bicycle lanes.
The existing Lipes
Boulevard corridor has
an urban typical section
with two travel lanes
and unmarked parallel
parking along both sides
of the road. A total of
46 feet of pavement is
provided between the
curbs.
Alternative 2
Alternative 2 wou d eliminate on- street parking on
one side of the street, and include bicycle lanes.
The bicycle lane adjacent to on- street parking would
include a striped buffer.
I\,10 i °. iiiiiiill.y "m .fl e pts
1111u111 1 :I
uui
Existing Photos
Lipes Boulevard shown here to the east of Stap es Street„ features wide lanes that allow for on- street parking on both sides of the
street. This park ng is seldom used except for the areas immediately adjacent to Kaffie Middle School and Jones Elementary School
Example Photos
wimmulti
(1) Example two -lane residential collector street with bike lanes and on- street parking on one side adjacent
to a school, Comelius, NC. (2) Example two -lane residential collector street with bike lanes and on- street
parking on one side, Port Townsend, WA. (3) Two -lane roadway with buffered bike lanes and on- street
parking on one side, Seattle, WA. (4) Buffered bike lane in Gainesville, FL. (5) Example graphic showing
bicycle lane with buffered area to adjacent on- street parking, (6) Shared lane marking ('sharrow ") adjacent
to on- street parking, Tallahassee, FL.
PLAN
128
hilobihity Eoncepts
(This page is intentionally left blank for the reader's notes)
129
IIII'vlob01110ty Concepts
\/�
o.
/
/
"DIIINPEAW,n con, ry. _C. >.._'y«9?
t. fie
ffe
(1ru MO
d 1 r� �1�1) 1 �11ilif1lit „1,II III C V..
ff
ilia t or , a, ucti ri
The following is excerpted from American Planning Association, Planning Advisory
Service Report No. 559. Design standards, procedures, and manuals guide project
development teams, designers, and other decision makers in balancing modal
interests. Design standards should be applicable to most situations but should
provide flexibility so that facilities fit a physical setting and community. There is no one
way a street should be built. Every design must consider the land -use context and
transportation needs for all users. All designs must comply with the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA). Designs should account for the needs and mobility limitations
of older adults as well. Design standards are best when they promote thoughtful
responses to a community's needs and provide a menu of options that can be
considered for each street.
ming
Or f
S/
r trrIL
Many Americans view walking and bicycling within their communities as unsafe
because of traffic and the lack of sidewalks, crosswalks, and bicycle facilities. (CDC
Transportation Recommendations) MobilityCC aims to design a more balanced street
network. There are four important planning issues that influence the mobility of our
street network and have effects on the design elements that need to be incorporated
into a street project. These issues are interrelated and cannot be examined in isolation
relative to a street's design.
• Encouraging mixed land use. A mix of land uses ensures that common designations
are close to a trip's origin, making shorter walking and bicycling trips more feasible.
• Ensuring street connectivity. Street connectivity provides direct, and therefore
shorter, routes for bicyclists and pedestrians and better access to public
transportations.
• Attending to access management. Access management limits the number of
driveway approaches to a roadway, which interferes with walking, bicycles, and
transit.
• Reexamining the primacy of motor vehicle level -of- service standards (LOS). Motor
vehicle LOS standards are focused primarily on intersection performance. This
often results in large intersections designed to accommodate conflicting users and
turning movements, especially when the goal is to maintain a high LOS for motor
vehicles. An intersection designed for a high vehicular LOS can be intimidating is
often a barrier for pedestrians, bicyclists and transit users, as these intersections
are usually characterized by multiple lanes, exclusive of turn lanes, and high speeds
around cross walks or pedestrian signals.
There are two principles that are critical to achieving the primarily goal of mobility:
reducing street width and managing vehicle speeds. These two principles work
together to improve the roadway for our community.
IIIII
pp
fin, hum
r i ari
"(414
t
L °HIV
Ii"t
Busy intersections and mid -block crossing locations are often intimidating places for
bicyclists and pedestrians. As such, in the interest of enhancing walkability and promoting
overall community livability, the planning team provided a range of design alternatives,
or treatments, to create safer, more compact crossing locations. These model treatments
could apply to a number of locations around the community.
II
.g
ck Cry 'ss n 1. s
Pedestrians often have a desire and need to move freely across streets where they live,
shop, go to school, enter and exit transit, and work, and they will often go up to 150 feet
out of their direction of travel in order to reach a well- designed, safe crossing. For blocks
longer than 400 -500 feet, there may be a need to place crossings and crossing islands mid -
block. Suburban locations sometimes have signal spacing of 1,400 to 8,000 feet, making
designated crossing locations inconvenient. The City of Corpus Christi has designated
mid -block crossings in some locations, such as along Port Avenue. The installation and
placement of additional mid -block crossings should be considered on roadways with long
blocks or with high pedestrian or transit use. The same key principles should guide the
design of crossings and crossing islands at all locations: minimize crossing distances,
select convenient crossing locations, and avoid surprise conditions.
,1 1 1111111111111 111111111111111111111111111111 1 1111111111111111111111111111
000000 11111.11,.
Raised Median with Refuge
Separate conflicts in time and location through
use of median islands. Raised medians create a
refuge for crossing pedestrians, allowing them
a 'safe' resting point and allowing them to cross
the roadway in two stages. Use of these islands
becomes more important at higher volumes and
speeds. The crossing refuge may be raised, or
may be flush with the roadway.
STAGGERED Z CROSSINGS
Similar to an angled crossing this crossing
occurs at a lower volume side street. In this type
of crossing, the side street travel is restricted
to right in /right out only movements, and the
crossing occurs on the upstream side of the cross
street so that the pedestrian movement does not
conflict with the right out movement. This type
of crossing might be desired on a roadway with
a high number of cross streets and driveways,
but with wide spacing between signalized
intersections.
:If
,? +110117 t 1!
11'441444 14 4944'14 444 41; 4,411 64' I, m '414441:4
0000 (III 10 0
STAGGERED OR ANGLED CROSSING WITH
REFUGE
Angling the crossing through the median or island
forces the pedestrian (or bicyclist) to "face" the
oncoming traffic. Angle the crosswalk opening
within refuge islands by 45 degrees toward traffic
to force pedestrians to look toward drivers before
going forward across the far -side travel lane.
RAISED CROSSINGS
Raised crosswalks, either with or without the
median refuge, visually cue the drivers to the
pedestrian path and act as speed humps in
slowing traffic. Raised crossings might be
considered on minor or residential collector
streets, where traffic calming is needed in the
area of a pedestrian crossing location.
IIII I�
i"'tIIII�I
11111w10,1 01, ,11111110,,
qinal
ruin h�
' ""d1,11:101:11111111111,11,11,111111111111111„,1,1,1„, „„„,„11,11111,1111,11,11,111,1,1
1if
111111111111111111111 11111111111111
Extreme care should be used when designing a marked mid -block crossing. Markings
and conventional warning signage should not typically be used as stand -alone treatments
at crossings on multi -lane roads or on roads with high speeds or heavy traffic volumes,
FHWA's Safety Effects of Marked Versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations
should be consulted with regard to appropriate treatments at potential crossing locations
under different traffic and roadway conditions. There are a number of advanced traffic
control options available to provide additional visibility and enhanced safety at difficult
crossings:
OVERHEAD SIGNS & SIDE MOUNTED
BEACONS
Standard overhead signs and side mounted
beacons are used as warning devices to alert
motorists of the crossing area and to warn
drivers to yield to those in the crosswalk.
'111 Hallil1111
�11� ,11l ail j11�
IN- PAVEMENT LIGHTS
Pedestrian actuated, flashing, in- pavement warning
lights illuminate when activated by a pedestrian
crossing or desiring to cross at a particular location.
1 35
I I1
RRFBs
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB) have
shown great promise in increasing the percentage
of motorists who yield to pedestrians. The lights are
mounted immediately below the standard pedestrian
crossing warning signs placed at the crosswalk (on
both the outside of the road and within the median).
The City of St. Petersburg, Florida has experimented
with these signs at numerous mid -block crossing
locations on four -lane roadways and has found that
motorists yield to crossing pedestrians over 82% of the
time, compared to an average of only 11% with side -
mounted round flashing beacons. These RRFBs and
warning signs should be supplemented with advance
pedestrian warning signs and advance yield lines
placed approx. 20 -50 feet in advance of the crosswalk.
I JI �°�
%��� ,�,,r �mmmmum�imnmmmmmem�
111
1111111111111 IIII�
1. „„, „Wall thlgi 001111100 010101100 0110111001000111001111010ill ED 11101:11r1117'111'
H1'111.'111:
PEDESTRIAN HYBRID BEACONS
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (also known as
HAWK crossings) can be used in locations
where a full traffic signal is not warranted. The
HAWK consists of a standard traffic signal RED -
RED over YELLOW format. The unit is dark until
activated by a pedestrian. When pedestrians
wish to cross the street, they press a button
which activates a warning FLASHING YELLOW
light on the main street. The indication then
changes to a SOLID YELLOW advising drivers
to prepare to stop. The signal then displays a
DUAL SOLID RED and shows the pedestrian a
WALK symbol. The beacon then displays an ALTERNATING FLASHING RED and the
pedestrian is shown a FLASHING DON'T WALK with a "countdown" signal advising
them of the time left to cross. The 2009 MUTCD contains guidance on when this type of
crossing may be appropriate, including the following:
If a traffic control signal is not justified under the signal warrants of Chapter 4C and if
gaps in traffic are not adequate to permit pedestrians to cross, or if the speed for vehicles
approaching on the major street is too high to permit pedestrians to cross, or if pedestrian
delay is excessive, the need for a pedestrian hybrid beacon should be considered on the
basis of an engineering study that considers major- street volumes, speeds, widths, and
gaps in conjunction with pedestrian volumes, walking speeds, and delay.
57/G N
'
Cr . s 1,,.II'"'B^'v „° 't II' l' "iW' ts
The crossing treatment used at all crossings, mid - block, signalized, or other, should
be visible and alert motorists to the potential interaction with pedestrians. Well marked
crossings are essential to good walking environments. Zebra or ladder style crosswalk
markings are more visible to motorists and should be used in areas of high pedestrian
activity or crossings of special emphasis. Ladder style markings are preferred by visually
impaired people, since the ladder rails (shore lines) help guide them across streets. Well -
marked crosswalks provide these essential services:
• Alert motorists to potential pedestrian
conflict areas.
• Increase motorists yielding to pedestrians.
• Enhance motorists' recognition of
intersections.
• Assist people with visual impairment in
their crossings.
• Attract pedestrians to the best crossing
places with the most appropriate sight
distances
HIGH VISIBILITY CROSSWALK
• Zebra or ladder striping
• Stamped painted asphalt or brick treatment (may be
used for aesthetic or urban form reasons but should
be designed and maintained to remain highly visible)
twyrefipr.r ,;(11
RAISED INTERSECTION
A raised intersection is similar to a raised
crosswalk, except that the entire intersection
is elevated rather than just the crosswalk area
This creates a vertical traffic calming installation
used to slow traffic through an intersection
and places pedestrians and vehicles on the
same plane. This provides a safety advantage
for pedestrians, as it puts them on "equal
footing” with vehicles. Raised intersections
are generally installed on residential or minor
collector streets and avoided on higher volume
streets. The gentle ramps that lead to the heart
of the intersection and the large raised area
are designed to avoid damage to large vehicles
and emergency response vehicles.
1
� u�o I II a:�� a u,�a�l�iu ' 1t, Ill.,
liiir eirsecti n Treatments
Intersections are places of managed conflict and are often very intimidating places
for pedestrians. Efficiently designed intersections keep configurations compact, limit
the number and width of lanes, keep speeds low, and keep costs of roadway systems
affordable.
rde
ivist
CHANNELIZED RIGHT TURN LANE WITH PEDESTRIAN REFUGE
Excessively wide intersections increase the amount of time needed for a pedestrian to
safely cross and discourage pedestrian use. Right turn channelizing islands (sometimes
called "pork chops ") minimize pedestrian crossing times and distances, in some cases
from 120 -160 feet to only 50 -60 feet. At signalized intersections, the use of right turn
islands also reduces the required pedestrian signal clearance interval time (flashing don't
walk) due to the shorter crossing distance. Many existing right turn lanes are not safe for
pedestrians. One contemporary strategy (sometimes referred to as "Australian rights" or
"Gap Acceptance Right Turns ") provides tighter angles„ better pedestrian visibility and
crossing safety, and improved motorist sight lines. For crossings of channelized right
turn lanes where motorist yielding behavior may be problematic, raised speed tables
between the edge of the roadway and the island may be an appropriate treatment. Raised
crossings at these locations have proven to increase the instances of motorists yielding
to pedestrians and slow speeds in advance of right turns.
tiWawals sit basil of cure
aardvark,* et tess5issa •ffr
street
Radius
Crossing Increased Percent
Distance Crossing Inure
37' +11' 42%
25' _ 50' +24' 921%
50' 89' +53' 203%
slaty
APPROPRIATE CORNER RADII
Large intersection and driveway corner radii
create longer crossing distances for pedestrians
and encourage higher vehicle turning speeds,
which can put pedestrians in danger. If a particular
intersection has a low turning volume of trucks and
buses, smaller corner radii of 20 -30 feet can be
used.
CURB EXTENSIONS
Curb extensions lengthen the curb line into the street,
narrowing the street at intersections or mid -block and
re- allocating a portion of street space to pedestrians or
ancillary uses. They are most often used in residential
neighborhoods and downtown commercial areas. Also
known as bulb outs, pop outs, or neck downs, curb
extensions increase drivers' awareness of pedestrians,
decrease crossing distance, reduce pedestrian exposure
to traffic, and reduce traffic speeds. Studies show
that curb extensions, when combined with a marked
crosswalk, increase the number of vehicles yielding to
pedestrians waiting to cross the street. Curb extensions
also may be used to make the street more amenable by
providing space for landscaping, art, lighting, signage
or street furniture. When used with on- street parking,
they also provide protection for vehicles parked behind
the bulb out. Curb extensions may also provide an area
for street trees, landscaping, or vegetated areas for
stormwater attenuation.
MEDIAN NOSES
Median noses can be used to help provide a protective
refuge for any pedestrians caught in the middle of
the street during a crossing and to help control the
speeds of left turning vehicles. Noses can be deep (6-
12 feet) shallow (2 -4 feet), or set behind crosswalks
when no further extensions are possible. In rare cases,
crosswalks can be skewed a few degrees in order
to get median noses to fit, although more than a few
degrees of skew can be problematic to the visually
impaired. With careful design, it is possible to include
median noses on many intersections.
ilta:V r /iii ' %!/ V/ia
1,'
STOP BAR PLACEMENT
Stop lines are most often placed 4-6 feet back
from marked crosswalks at intersections. Lines
placed up to 10 feet back from crosswalk
markings are an important option (when
sight distance permits) in order to reduce
encroachment into the cross walk by vehicles.
At mid -block crosswalks, stop bars (or advance
yield lines) should be placed 20 -30 feet back
from the crosswalk on two -lane roadways and
30 -50 feet back from the crosswalk on multilane
roadways; the further setback on multilane
roadways is needed to accommodate vehicle
sight distance of crossing pedestrians and to
prevent multiple threat crashes (where a vehicle
in one lane stops but a vehicle in an adjacent
lane has their view of the crossing pedestrian
blocked and does not stop).
139
Si ,,,. na
a iln IIII ti
n1,1
f IIIr Pe
stI ns
All signalized intersections require well maintained pedestrian signal heads on all legs..
When signal heads are omitted pedestrians may not know when they are permitted to
cross. Per current design guidelines, the pedestrian clearance phase at signals should
be set for walking rates of 3.5 feet per second, with 3.0 feet per second in areas with a
significant population of seniors or those with disabilities. The walk phase for crossings
should be no less than 4 seconds, with a minimum 7 seconds as a more common time.
Several other pedestrian accommodations can be incorporated at signalized locations to
improve the operation and interaction of pedestrians and bicyclists within the intersection.
These include:
PEDESTRIAN COUNTDOWN
Pedestrian countdown signals give crossing
pedestrians an indication of how much time they have
left to complete their crossing and end much of the
confusion that standard signal heads create (1 only
had four seconds to cross the street before the hand
started to flash at me "). They also give a clear idea of
actual time left to complete the crossing. Countdown
signals should be used on all new construction projects,
and should be used as a retrofit replacement of older
pedestrian signals particularly on multi -lane roadways.
PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTONS
Pedestrian push buttons provide immediate feedback to
users concerning a request made for a pedestrian phase,
similar to elevator buttons that light up when pushed.
rruri��+
iffdpm
r
LEADING PEDESTRIAN INTERVAL (LP!)
Provides the pedestrian a head start (typically 3 -5 seconds) before motor
vehicle traffic is given a green light, and thereby helps to reduce pedestrian
conflict with turning vehicles.
��0 Id 'r11 ii; ri I f , frI1'
•
ip
n�i
oil 1 111111 111111
0111'11111111111 110110000100000000
lo 11111111111111 ,,,,,
011011011111111111111111100
iW
team
Immom
woom
YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS BLANK -OUT SIGNS
These signs increase awareness of crossing
pedestrians at intersections. Signs typically read
"Yield to Peds" during the concurrent movement
green signal phase„ this message can be displayed
automatically during all signal cycles or only when
the pedestrian phase has been actuated. During
conflicting movement phases, the sign can either be
blank, or can read 'No Turn on Red" if it is desired to
prohibit this movement for the benefit of pedestrians
legally crossing the path of the right on red movement.
BIKE DETECTOR MARKINGS
Shows bicyclist the proper positioning at an intersection
to trigger a green light..
EXCLUSIVE PEDESTRIAN PHASE
Gives pedestrians a separate phase that allows them
to cross an intersection in any direction (including
.0011000 001000101)100000001
diagonally) without vehicle conflict.
010 'III
0\001i 1,1001100'0110.i0 010,11000000,001100001.0000. „,
1111.1IIIIIIIII[111,1111111[11'.111[1111'.11'.111.1'.11'.1111'.11'.11'.111111100 010001110000000
1001101VIOVOVIDO.010.11111[1111c0111.1■ ::,11:!1))141,111:11).
1 °"
r li,�llmd '004 00,00 3.,,Jf,, ('71' ' 1uf11.�
IIII
et, ���� IIII � ►�c�U1e Con n ec U n Optic)ns
In locations where hike /bike trails may not be feasible or where gaps may exist, on- street
connections can be provided to Zink the trails. The two primary on- street connection
options are designated bicycle lanes and shared lane markings. Locations where these
on- street connections should be considered are shown on the map on the following page.
These treatments are described in more detail below.
1111111111111111111111volouvol 101001V
efldi
t, IY ul,k1(31t
Bicycle Lanes
Bicycle lanes are the portion of a roadway which has
been designated by striping, signing, and pavement
markings for the preferential or exclusive use of
bicyclists. They are most appropriate and most useful
on arterial and collector streets but are generally not
appropriate or necessary on local or neighborhood
streets. The bike lane is located adjacent to motor
vehicle travel lanes and flows in the same direction
as motor vehicle traffic. Bike lanes are typically on the
right side of the street, between the adjacent travel
lane and curb, road edge, or parking lane. Bicycle
lanes should be designed to the minimum standards
contained in AASHTO's Guide for the Development
of Bicycle Facilities. The minimum width should be
5 feet with curb and gutter (measured from face of
curb) or 4 feet without curb and gutter.
Buffered Bicycle Lanes
Buffered bike lanes are conventional bicycle lanes
paired with a designated buffer space separating
the bicycle lane from the adjacent motor vehicle
travel lane and /or parking lane. A buffered bike lane
is allowed as per MUTCD guidelines for buffered
preferential lanes (section 3D -01). The buffered bike
lane provides additional space between the cyclist
and either the motoring public or the `door zone' of
parked vehicles. Buffered lanes provide a greater
space for bicycling without making the bike lane
appear so wide that it might be mistaken for a travel
lane or a parking lane. Buffering should be used
adjacent to parking lanes, or on roadways with high
travel speeds, high travel volumes, high amounts of
truck traffic or streets with extra lanes or wide lanes.
i
rr`t,;arb
Colored Bicycle Lanes
Colored pavement within a bicycle lane increases
the visibility of the facility, identifies potential areas
of conflict, and reinforces priority to bicyclists in
conflict areas and in areas with pressure for illegal
parking. Colored pavement is commonly applied at
intersections, driveways, conflict areas, and along
non - standard or enhanced facilities, such as cycle
tracks. Motorists are expected to yield right of way
to bicyclists at these locations. Though rarely done in
North America, color can be applied along the entire
length of bicycle lanes to increase the overall visibility
of the facility and visually narrow the roadway for
motorists.
Shared Lane Markings ( "Sharrows ")
Shared Lane Markings, also known as "Sharrows ",
are markings that are used in lanes that are shared
by bicycles and motor vehicles when a travel lane is
too narrow to provide a standard -width bicycle lane.
The markings have been incorporated into the 2009
version of the MUTCD. They let motorists know to
expect bicyclists, provide lateral positioning guidance
to bicyclists, and reinforce good bicycling behavior,.
Sharrows should be considered on roadways too
narrow for bicycles and motor vehicles to share side
by side (typically less than 14 -feet wide); on roadways
with on- street parking; where there are gaps in a
bicycle lane (such as before a bicycle lane begins
or after a bicycle lane ends); for designated bicycle
routes; and on roadways with a hill where there is
only enough width to provide a bicycle lane in one
direction (a bicycle lane should be provide d in the
uphill direction, and sharrows should be provided in
the downhill direction). Sharrows should only be
implemented on roadways with posted speeds of 35
mph or less, and the MUTCD recommends placement
of the markings after intersections and not more
than every 250 feet thereafter. The 250 -foot spacing
is preferred on roadways with on- street parking, but
greater spacing is acceptable for roadways without
on- street parking (up to 500 feet).
0 V'u° `A'�,II "7� I fl ��V( ��,,ik;J 0 V "U (1)pi iUIUPI i'ia
A A Acc r „ , (, . iiinm iv 1. ilIr a J
Design)
Sidewalks, crossings, entire blocks and corridors, parking lots, parks, waterfronts, and
trails must be designed to work for people of all abilities (Universal Design). The City's
ADA Master Plan (Project No. 6485) was developed to address the City's pedestrian
infrastructure needs as mandated by the Americans with Disabilities Act and ADA Title
II.
The ADA Master Plan includes:
• Maps of proposed ADA accessible routes connecting locations of interest across the
City
• Inventory of existing conditions of curb ramps, sidewalks and other pedestrian
elements along the proposed ADA accessible routes
• Identification of ADA deficiencies along priority routes
• Projected construction costs to address the identified deficiencies
• Proposed schedule for the construction of the pedestrian infrastructure
improvements
• Identification of potential funding sources to fund the improvements
In the ADA Master Plan, priority for project routes was determined on the basis of the
relative strength of connections provided between key destinations, including:
1. City/ State/ Public Buildings
2. Major Transportation Routes
3. Places of Public Accommodation
Transit, medical care facilities, and locations where special populations are most
commonly found are among the other key destinations that may be used to prioritize
future project opportunities.
Well- designed blocks include adequate widths for turning and maneuvering
wheelchairs, landscaping and other guidance to help all people remain oriented toward
crossings (two curb ramps per corner are best), and utilities and other features that
present no barriers to safe passage for all users.
In implementing the ADA improvements defined in the ADA Master Plan, the City will
uphold the following design guidelines where possible:
• Keep corner radii to appropriate levels (i.e. never so wide as to induce speed).
• Maximize use of curb extensions to inset parking and allow for planter boxes and
other furniture to help orient and guide pedestrians.
• Curb extensions also protect the corner from illegal parking, reduce crossing
distances and time, and provide awareness of when a person enters and exits a
street.
• Use color, texture, and tactile features to help orient and guide.
• Maximize entry and exit widths. Use minimum widths only when necessary because
of other site constraints.
• Whenever possible, provide two ramps at street corners in order to facilitate
safe movement of pedestrians. Dual ramps are especially important for those
in wheelchairs or who are visually impaired. As corner radii increase above 30
degrees, ramp placement shifts away from the intersection, which takes pedestrians
out of the sight lines of turning motorists. As such, unless curb extensions are
used, corner radii of 30 degrees or more may call for only a single ram in order to
allow cross walks to be placed closer to the intersection.
1 44
Due to insufficient space, this design
forces pedestrians with disabilities
against traffic. Two ramps on this corner
would eliminate the problem (Photo: Dan
Burden).
Design t!r � ilia
r
111111111111111111111111,1,1111111111111111111 1,11V111111111u.
µ!�!uwu•.
The City's Engineering Services Department augmented national standards with a
local approach unique to our community. The following standards and any subsequent
editions will be recommended to be used to review all City transportation related
projects. Design decisions will be at the discretion of the Engineering Services
Department. These standards are to be used in combination with the following existing
national guidance:
• Texas Accessibility Standards (TAS) of the Architectural Barriers Act, Article 9102,
Texas Civil Statutes.
• City of Corpus Christi Unified Development Code (UDC)
• City of Corpus Christi Standard Specifications and Standard Details, latest revision.
• Rules and Regulations published by Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
(TCEQ).
• TCEQ, Water Supply Division, Rules and Regulations for Public Water Systems,
latest revision.
• TCEQ, Design Criteria for Sewer Systems, Texas Administrative Code, latest
revision.
• State of Texas Engineering Practice Act.
• State of Texas Professional Land Surveying Practices Act.
• City of Corpus Christi Storm Water Master Plan
• City of Corpus Christi Water Master Plan
• City of Corpus Christi Wastewater Master Plan
• Mobility Corpus Christi Plan
• American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
Guide for Design of Pavement Structures (1993 Edition) or latest approved edition
thereof
• Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) latest edition thereof
4
r „p ,IIIIrr "LII'mt 'j; ; IIIItc aIllrl
However, design decisions specifically related to Hike and Bike Trails will be at the
discretion and decision of a review committee comprised of representatives of the
following departments: Parks and Recreation, Planning, Engineering Services, Streets,
Development Services, and Storm Water.
The following standards and any subsequent editions will be recommended to be used
to review all City transportation related projects.
• AASHTO — American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials
• Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 4th Ed. (2012)
• Planning, Design, & Operation of Pedestrian Facilities, 1st Ed.
• Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 6th Ed.
• NACTO — National Association of City Transportation Officials,
• Urban Bikeway Design Guide, 2nd Ed. (2012)
• TXDOT — Texas Department of Transportation
• Roadway Design Manual (2010)
Chapter 5 of AASHTO's Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, concerns
the design of shared uses paths. The City prefers the use of Decomposed Granite
(DG) or Concrete for the surface of shared use paths over any other material. Other
materials may only be used when conditions prevent the use of preferred materials
and a determination is made by the review committee. Such conditions and obstacles
are described within AASHTO's guide. Chapter 5 further describes the shared use
path design standards, specifically for accessibility requirements, width and clearance„
shared use paths adjacent to roadways (sidepaths), design speeds, cross slope,
grades, stopping sight distance, drainage, lighting, and surface structures.
0,11ffln
1111111';'' 1111h '
1111111111
-77/7 1 f f I r
T'/ _... F/. / ...... ; . . . .r
/ 7711 77 77
dear iriir
/ / ""IJ / /i�,,n ;7;;,rr� rl » y`l,�9i�)$,��o'., y,��, i,i 7712),7/ yJ�
ee/ke/
1,�,,Y v, sr, ;,,.� r
I SS
2
l ,f y 77oz, i Ref
,, „ice /Kad,1 ' %t;
irr rrrrru
( 1,04/
/ll� %l //
I !R ww � W
o p) riot
t t'C"), ti„„1,
The goal of the City's street operations and maintenance is to
improve the street maintenance program in order to keep good
streets in good condition longer by using industry standard
maintenance. It is less costly to maintain a street than to replace it.
The City of Corpus Christi's Street Network consists of Arterial Streets
such as Staples and Everhart, Collector Streets such as Aquarius
and Acushnet, and Residential Streets which are our neighborhood
streets. The total system is approximately 1 ,204 miles and consists of:
Arterial Streets 186 miles
Collector Streets 242 miles
Residential /Alleys 776 miles
C VIII " "" VIII" °°° 'III
o poi tor W ts
The City of Corpus Christi is committed to building streets that allow for
a choice in mode of travel and accommodate the needs of all users,
no matter their age or ability. The City strives to uphold a fundamental
level of service for motorists across its street network, and, as such,
Pavement Condition Index (PCI) has historically been the City's principal
means of prioritizing roadway work. One third of all City streets are
assessed each year, meaning that the PCI score for a given segment
is updated every three year. Roadway PCI scores of 55 or above are
candidates for improvement by way of routine maintenance practices.
3 re
"' Illlull
VIII "i'VIII" "VIII "C
Preventative Maintenance includes the techniques used for preservation
of the structural integrity of the pavement cross - section. The basic theory
behind pavement preservation is to apply relatively inexpensive PM to
pavements at regular intervals to avoid much more expensive repairs later.
These includes:
• Seal Coating — leveling uneven areas, applying an asphalt emulsion and covering
with aggregate rock providing for weather tight seal and a wear surface.
• Overlaying - applying a minimum of 1.5 inches of asphalt to the street's surface
after repairing distressed areas.
NOTE: Street Services is a maintenance operation and is not funded or equipped to perform
major reconstruction or overlays of streets such as Staples Street (between Gotlihar and
Williams), Alameda and Annaville. These type of projects are funded and handled through
the City's Engineering Department and the Capital Improvement and Bond programs,
it VIII "i
1,10 1111e1""
t
For long term planning, the Streets division utilizes a computer software program
called Micro -PAVER (PAVER for short) to help develop work strategies and plans on
a network level and to assess the overall condition of the street network. The PAVER
program was developed by the US Army Corps of Engineers. It is distributed and
technically supported by American Public Works Association (APWA) and is widely
used throughout the country. Street Services has used this program for over 15 years.
The City's street inventory network is set up in PAVER and pavement sections
are defined for every street. As a statistical program, pavement sample sections
are defined through PAVER on a random basis. The department street inventory
inspectors then inspect the sample sections for the various defined pavement
distresses. PAVER defines 20 distresses and three severity levels, which are
documented for each sample section. The inspection information is then entered into
PAVER for analysis. PAVER provides a quantitative street condition assessments
based on inspection results on a scale between 0 -100, which we call PCI or
pavement condition index. The higher the PCI number, the better condition of the
street. Based on the PCI, a work strategy for that pavement section is developed
and the overall condition /needs of the street network is determined. Using this
process, the street conditions are continuously being updated through inspections
and maintenance work being performed. Although this is a continuous process,
it is important to note that it takes three years to inspect the entire street network.
G
loll Stet Stiv
Street segments with a PCI score of below 55 necessitate more intensive intervention in the
form of roadway reconstruction. Because roadway reconstruction includes an opportunity
to update utilities, right -size the roadway, and build complete streets, prioritization of those
roadway segments that have been earmarked for roadway reconstruction is a sensitive
and important process. The City's Comprehensive Planning and Environmental Services
and Engineering Services departments collaborated to develop recommended criteria
and measures that would aid in prioritizing roadway reconstruction in a way that balances
the need to provide a fundamental level of service for motorists.
Goals for Proposed Methodology
The proposed criteria and measures provide a data - driven analytical framework
and include: street inspection and assessment, multi -modal use and opportunity,
access /place based connections, public safety and community and public image.
Street Inspection and Assessment
Pavement Condition
The Pavement Condition Index (PCI) is a 1 -100 scale that provides a
standardized, semi - quantitative means of rating the physical condition of
existing streets. Streets determined to have a PCI score above a certain mid -
scale threshold are considered to be suitable for improvement through routine
maintenance measures, whereas streets with PCI below that threshold require full
reconstruction in order to achieve the desired basic level of service and quality.
Multi -Modal Use and Opportunity
Condition of Pedestrian Facilities
The presence of well - maintained sidewalks on a given corridor will reduce that corridor's
relative priority for reconstruction. Because the City strives to provide a fundamental
level of service —i.e. functional sidewalks —on all corridors, those corridors that do not
currently have sidewalks will be prioritized for roadway reconstruction over those that do.
Incomplete ADA Master Plan Project(s)
The presence of an incomplete ADA Master Plan project within a roadway segment
will increase that corridor's priority for reconstruction. Reconstruction presents an
opportunity to complete construction of such projects, thereby advancing the City's
ambition to enhance all streets so that they can accommodate all potential users.
Connectivity to Existing Bicycle Facilities
The presence of existing, dedicated on- street bike lanes on a given corridor will reduce
that corridor's relative priority for reconstruction. Because the City strives to provide a
fundamental level of service —i.e. on- street bike lanes —on all corridors, those corridors
that do not currently have bike lanes will be prioritized for reconstruction over those that do.
Integration with MobilityCC - Urban Transportation Plan
Those corridors that have been identified as priorities for road diets— reduction in the
number and/or width of lanes to better match traffic patterns and the character of adjacent
land uses —will be prioritized for reconstruction. Right -sized corridors provide safer
conditions for all modes of travel, as narrower lanes and roadways induce slower speeds.
Further, the reduction in total pavement area translates into reduced long -term maintenance
costs and reduced environmental impact in the form of polluted stormwater runoff.
Integration with RTA Bus Routes
Because the City aims to build a coordinated, multi -modal mobility network
that provides a diversity of transportation options, roadway segments with a
higher density of transit stops will be prioritized for roadway reconstruction.
Access and Place -Based Connections
Proximity to Destination Node(s)
Roadway segments in close proximity to designated Destination Nodes will be prioritized
for reconstruction. Destination Nodes, as identified through a quantitative analysis in the
City's ICSP, are community focal points that are predisposed for redevelopment as compact,
efficient, mixed -use community centers. To the extent that reconstructed roadways near
Destination Nodes will enhance multi -modal connectivityto these locations, these roadways
are an important part of the City's broader effort to foster strategic, resource-efficient growth.
Proximity to Civic and /or Health Institutions
Roadway segments within close proximity to civic (e.g. libraries and senior centers) and/
or health institutions will be prioritized for roadway reconstruction. The City strives to
create a multi -modal transportation network that facilitates access to key destinations —
such as civic and health institutions — within the community; the reconstruction of
roadway segments that provide direct access to such destinations furthers this initiative.
Proximity to Recreational Amenities
Roadway segments within close proximity to recreational amenities (e.g. pools and
parks) will be prioritized for roadway reconstruction. The City strives to create a multi -
modal transportation network that facilitates access to key destinations, including
recreational facilities, within the community. Recreational facilities serve an important
function in terms of public health, wellness, and overall quality of life in a community;
the reconstruction of roadway segments that provide direct, multi -modal access to them
enhances these benefits.
Density of Commercial Land Use
Roadways are the principal means of connecting residents to goods and services, and as
such, they are the circulatory system of the local economy. Roadway segments for which
a high percentage of adjacent land use is commercial will be prioritized for reconstruction,
as these corridors provide multi -modal connections that directly support local commerce.
n3et 'non
Public Safety
Number and Severity of Vehicular Accidents
The City strives to uphold a high standard of public safety on its roadways. As such, those
roadways with relatively higher rates and /orseverityofvehicle- vehicle, vehicle - bicycle, and/
or vehicle - pedestrian interactions will be prioritized for reconstruction, as reconstruction
presents opportunities to implement design improvements to enhance public safety.
Street Lighting Conditions
The City aims to provide a threshold level of street lighting as part of its broader effort
to uphold the safety of roadway for users of all types. Because the City strives to
provide a fundamental level of service —i.e. a threshold standard for street lighting —on
all corridors, those corridors that do not currently meet this standard will be prioritized
over those that do. Thus, the presence of street lighting that meets the City's minimum
threshold on a given corridor will reduce that corridor's relative priority for reconstruction.
Proximity to Schools
The establishment of safe routes to school is one of the City's fundamental public
health and wellness objectives. The availability of non - vehicular connections between
schools and nearby residential neighborhoods promotes physical activity and
independence among school -aged citizens and avoids the environmental impact
associated with vehicular travel. Thus, roadway segments within a reasonable biking
distance from one or more schools will be prioritized for roadway redevelopment.
IPEaA Y�U A/VD AlAYlti lAil'nN 156, ,._,,,t l ,,, Is. for F6 H „J J d ..,..(,J ,,,�, t����� I''1 i !.l �� „1/ rf�CJr�I
� .t
Community and Public Image
Public Comment and Input
As daily users of the City's roadway network, Corpus Christi residents are often the best
source of data about its condition and functionality. As such, the City captures and tracks all
specificfeedback provided by users ofthe system, and those roadway segments forwhich the
highestvolume ofcomplaints orsuggestions are receivedwi I I be prioritized forreconstruction.
Integrates with Area Development Plan(s) (ADP)
Neighborhoodsarethefunctional geographicunitoftheCity'sArea DevelopmentPlan process.
Theshape and organization ofstreets often definesthe physical bound ariesofneighborhoods„
likewise, corridors often provide the spine around which neighborhoods are organized. To
that end, roadway segments that have a Scenic Corridor designation will be prioritized for
roadway reconstruction, as these corridors are often an integral part of the neighborhood
character that provides the context and model for the place -based planning process.
1n 'lf111111 I� �N»III1
This proposed multi - criteria methodology for prioritizing street construction is intended
to represent our City's goal of holistic consideration of roadways' multiple functions. As
new data become available the methodology can be implemented to improve the process
of street prioritization. One potential application, including criteria, sub- criteria, criteria
weight, and the specific metrics, can be found in the Appendix.
Other recommended applications of this methodology would be to prioritize candidates
for routine maintenance improvement.
1111111111111111111111111111!
�i �
III �����1ilii
r
1
Like any plan or project involving the use of taxpayer dollars, MobilityCC should be
continuously evaluated for success and opportunities for improvement. Performance
measures to assess progress from the implementation of MobilityCC includes:
Defining performance -based planning and programming for MobilityCC:
• Goals /Objectives
• Performance Measures
• Target Setting — Evaluate Programs, Projects and Strategies
• Allocate Resources — Budget and Staff
• Measure, Evaluate, and Report Results — Actual Performance Achieved
Establishing specific performance measures in the following areas:
• Safety
• User data - bike, pedestrian, transit and traffic
• Crash data
• Infrastructure Condition
• Number of exemptions from this policy approved
• Congestion Reduction
• System Reliability
• Use of new facilities by mode
• Compliments and complaints
• Linear feet of pedestrian accommodations built
• Number of ADA accommodations built
• Miles of bike lanes /trails built or striped
• Number of transit accessibility accommodations built
• Freight Movements and Economic Vitality
• Environmental Sustainability
• Number of street trees planted
• Project Delivery Delays Reduction
Submit a report of the performance of MobilityCC:
• Required Every Year.
• Report given to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Subcommittee, Transportation Advisory
Committee, Planning Commission, and the City Council.
• Report Includes:
• Evaluation of condition and performance of the transportation system.
• Progress achieved in meeting performance target in comparison with the performance in
previous reports.
• Evaluation of how preferred scenario has improved conditions and performance, where
applicable.
• Evaluation of how local policies and capital investments have impacted costs necessary
to achieve performance targets, where applicable.
11 111'1'11
11 1
Doi
The Implementation section is the list of tasks
These tasks are sourced not only from the plans
additional information that is needed during the ph
MobilityCC
"alifigotfoti ��l''���I
Ensure that Planning and Environmenta
Services Department. Engineering Services,
and Parks and Rec. apply the framework of
MobilityCC in P -D -O -M functions.
Planning &
Environmental
Services
to be accomplished.
themselves, but also
ases of construction.
Engineering
Services,
Development
Services, Parks and
Recreation
HIGH
Plan - UTP
Roadway Reclassification for bond - related
streets
Planning &
Environmental
Services
Engineering
Services,
Development
Services
HIGH
Plan - UTP
Roadway Reclassification CityWide
Planning &
Environmental
Services
Engineering
Services,
Development
Services
Plan - UTP
Street right sizing within Destination Nodes
Planning &
Environmental
Services
Engineering
Services,
Development
Services
Plan
Align MobilityCC with the Corpus Christi
Metropolitan Planning Organization (CCMPO):
Metropolitan Transportation Plan and Corpus
Christi Regional Transportation Authority
( CCRTA). Long Range Plan for consistency
and conformity.
Planning &
Environmental
Services
CCMPO and CCRTA
Design
Implementation
Matrix
Develop engineering construction estimates for
design techniques
Engineering
Services
Planning &
Environmental
Services
Refine implementation plan that has general
actions with specific targets and deadlines to
achieve over time (5 years) for an integrated
multi modal transportation system.
Planning &
Environmental
Services
Engineering
Services, Parks and
Recreation
HIGH
HIGH
Implementation
Matrix
Highlight priority milestones for MobilityCC
implementation strategies to achieve over short
term (5 years).
Planning &
Environmental
Services
Engineering
Services, Parks and
Recreation
HIGH
Operate &
Maintain
Identify capital investment priorities„ policies,
and strategies.
Planning &
Environmental
Services
Engineering
Services,
Development
Services
HIGH
Operate &
Maintain
Multiple departments provide adequate support
to measure, evaluate, and report MobilityCC.
Planning &
Environmental
Services
Engineering
Services,
Development
Services, Parks and
Recreation
HIGH
Operate &
Maintain
Coordinate with the Corpus Christi Metropolitan
Planning Organization ( CCMPO), Corpus
Christi Regional Transportation Authority
( CCRTA), Texas Deparment of Transportation
(TXDOT) Corpus Christi District, and other key
stakeholders
Planning &
Environmental
Services
CCMPO, CCRTA,
TXDOT
HIGH
Operate &
Maintain
Coordinate development of the capital budget
that conforms with the guiding principles,
policies, and objectives of MobilityCC.
Planning &
Environmental
Services
Engineering
Services Parks and
Recreation
HIGH
% ••••1111111111111
•• - •
" ".
1:1;;;;,;(1111111110.11„
Operate &
Maintain
Adoption of the draft Parking Ordinance as an
amendment to the Unified Development Code
as recommended in the ICSP and EECBG
Planning &
Environmental
Services
Engineering
Services,
Development
Services
Implementation
Matrix
Allocate resources to ensure sustainability and
update of MobilityCC.
Planning &
Environmental
Services
Engineering
Services, Parks and
Recreation
Plan
Evaluate Capital Improvement Projects
prioritization to encourage implementation of
bicycle, pedestrian, and transit improvements
Planning &
Environmental
Services
Engineering
Services,
Development
Services
Plan - ADA,
Operate &
Maintain
Maintain a comprehensive inventory of the
pedestrian and bicycling facility infrastructure
integrated with the City's database
Planning &
Environmental
Services
Design
Annual evaluation of the Infrastructure Design
Manual regarding street design
Engineering
Services
Engineering
Services,
Development
Services
Engineering
Services,
Development
Services
Operate &
Maintain
Establish the Transportation Advisory
Committee as the committee to oversee the
implementation of this plan.
Engineering
Services
Planning &
Environmental
Services
Operate &
Maintain
Utilize inter•department project coordination to
promote the most responsible and efficient use
of fiscal resources for activities that occur
within the public right of way
Planning &
Environmental
Services
Engineering
Services,
Development
Services
Construction
Phase One Road Diet Project List
Engineering
Services
Construction
Phase One Roundabout Project List
Engineering
Services
Planning &
Environmental
Services
Planning &
Environmental
Services
HIGH
HIGH
MED
MED
MED
MED
MED
MED
MED
Construction
Phase One Corridor Project List
Engineering
Services
Planning &
Environmental
Services
MED
Implementation
Matrix
Enhance duties of the TAC in monitoring
implementation of MobilityCC, including annual
report to Planning Commission and City
Council.
Planning &
Environmental
Services
Engineering
Services, Parks and
Recreation
MED
I Inn o r"[ rt,1 t
11,1 en on
o %hor 1\14
(This page is intentionally left blank for the reader's notes)
•
1M
9drFiinSr...
' d�i�hld��„ uulwl��lpuuwouuuuuuuuuouutl�������. .
2144
Al LE
COi5
Interrt,rion
Airp
358;
3 ;4
43
044
0' t."" ilr;f L- '1E144
i2,15;!„,-,-"lr, rIgurri
an"
AZ
. . . .. 0, ., . u.... . ■
a a
i 111
a • a
par
il 1 A3 ,
evoot. o
a,
2., , 11
' ,,eempubanueUr•
U III ' : III eg ' LIT,VII
TANaLie'
Nava ,-Ar Station
s Christi
a a
u.1
) C3
0LC
N
0 et „
ON.
11
a : a fil
II 44. III
at m
4.2 r'1'1.1A'
ej,. /
If) , t III
111,1 62.
II C.1
fkriadral n■kc
Irmo
r7
s. co mil pi on on
iii..
nu n a o nl Sinn n p stern' p
''2
oor nl lid
)"1' "L'i
S"
l'IIII! " "W "Illul
Table 1 below describes one potential application of a quantitative, multi - criteria
framework for prioritizing street construction that is intended to represent a holistic
consideration of roadways' multiple functions. All components of this matrix— including
criteria, sub - criteria, criteria weight, and the specific metrics —are subject to change per
the evolving needs and priorities of the community. Each metric for all five criteria are
summed to yield the overall score on a scale of 1 to 5 for a given roadway segment.
Table 1: Prioritization Criterion and Metrics
DESCRIPTION OF
CRITERIA
SUB-
CRITERIA
CRITERIA
WEIGHT
METRIC
VECTOR
Surface Condition
tl
Pavement Condition Index
—
Multi -modal Use and
Opportunity
I
o
PresencelCondfion of Sidewalks
—
Incomplete ADA Masterplan project (per ADA Master
Plan) present win segment
Presence of dedicated (no parking) "on.street bike
lanes 4''or, wider .....
Road diet priority per ICSP?
Average # of bus stops per 1/4 mile of segment
Access/Place -based
Connections
o
Proximity to Destination Nodes)
+
# of civic./health institutions (e.g. libraries, senior
centers) w /in 1/4 mile of segment
"+
# of recreational amenities (e.g. parks, pools„ rec
centers) wrn 1/4 mile of segment
Total % of existing land use along segment frontage"
(both sides) that Is retail or commercial
Public Safety
Vehicular
0
#/severity of reported collisions along segment
(previous full year)
+
Pedestrian
0
#Iseverity of reported vehicle /pedestrian and
vehicle/bike interactions along segment (previous full
year)
+
Presence /density of street lighting
—
Proximity to school(s)
+
Community and
Public Image
tl
# complaints
+ _.
'173 1.ction
The "Vector" column indicates whether a particular metric will have a positive or
negative influence on the relative priority of a given roadway segment. For example,
the presence of well - maintained sidewalks on a given corridor will reduce that
corridor's relative priority for reconstruction. Because the City strives to provide a
fundamental level of service —i.e. functional sidewalks —on all corridors, those
corridors that do not currently have sidewalks are prioritized over those that do:
Table 2: Ranking Procedures
Description
of Criteria
Criteria
Weight
Metric
(
Vector
1
Low Priority
for Maintenance
P
3
4;
5
High Priority
for Maintenance
Multi-modal
Use and
Opportunity
cu
will
11 1
'
Presence /
Condition of
Sidewalks
-
Sidewalks
present both
sides of segment
-
Sidewalk
present
both sides
of segment
+
Sidewalk not`
present or in
unusable
_ .,condition
Comparatively, because the City strives to enhance connections to key destinations,
a roadway segment's relative priority for reconstruction is positively influenced by the
presence of nearby recreational amenities:
Table 3: Ranking Procedures
Description of
Criteria
Criteria
Weight
Metric
Vector
2
3
4
5
Low Priority
for Maintenance
High Priority
for Maintenance
Access /
Place -based
Connections
,v/,
r ,/
; / /��W
���
_'
# of recreational
amenities {e ,g,
parks, pools, rec
centers) en 114
mile of segment
+
0
1
2
3
4 or more
This framework will allow for the addition of new metrics for a given criteria as new
data become available. Likewise, the weighting factors for the various criteria can
be easily adjusted to reflect changes in community priorities. Further, roadway
segments that have the same overall score can be further prioritized on the basis
of a subset of the criteria or even by a subset of the metrics within a given criteria.
l r /,r .,, 11X X
1'
4, j�l �Ir,� iir�.. ✓Jl :1; 1, i'elr � '.�,�l, f t„
l
401/
1,0„ Iffikl
'nr✓9�l�u�,�Y a�md41"
Corpus Chr'stl
Engineering
Project Name:
Data:
Road Classification
Land Use
MobilitytC
Urban Transportation Plan
MP)
ADA Master Plan
Design Techniques
Road Dlet
Other Plans
P
o f e
Pedestrian Counts
Bicycle Counts.
Truck Volumes
Average Daily Trips
Street Matr+x Score
obilluiN:y4, C IF:Pr ject Checklist
What is the Road Classification of the project?
Prior to reclassification of rood type,
What are the land uses around the project by percentage?
HlkeBikeCC
Are there HikeBikeCC recommendations within the project area? Yes No
On. Street or Off-Street facility? On Off
Priority? Yes No
Opportunity? Yes No
Existing? Yes No
Describe any recommendations Included In this project
Describe any recommendations NOT Included in this project and reason for deferral:
Are there Urban Transportation Plan (UTP) recommendations within the project area?
Describe any recommendations included In this project
Describe any recommendations NOT included in this project and reason for deferral
Are there ADA Master Plan recommendations within the project area?
Describe any recommendations included In this project
Describe any recommendations NOT included in this project and reason for deferral,
Are there Design Techniques that can be Implemented within the project area?
Describe any recommendations included In this project
any recommendations NOT Included In this project and reason for deferral
Is the Average Daily Trip (ADT) count below 20,
Is the Average Daily Trip (ADT) count 8,000 -15
Does the project have 4 or more travel lanes?
If yes, to any of the above
Crash Rate
Transit Corridor?
Accessibility Corridor?
Popular or essential bicycle routes /links?
Destination Node?
Catalyst /Inflll Area?
Reinvestment Areas or Enterprise Zones.
Historic streets or scenic roads.
61'1
►,I'►
City of Corpus Christi Comprehensive Plan (PIanCC)
Are there recommendations from the City's Comprehensive Plan (PIanCC) within the project area? Yes No
Describe any recommendations Included in this project
Describe any recommendations NOT included in this project and reason for deferral
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
City of Corpus Christi Area Development Plans (ADP)
Are there recommendations from any of the City's Area Development Plans (ADP) within the
project area?
Describe any recommendations included In this project!.
Describe any recommendations NOT included in this project and reason for deferral
176
Yes No
Other Plans
Bus Stops
Project Manager Summary
Project Engineer:
Project Manager:
Corpus Christi Regional Transit Authority (RTA) Master Plan
Are there Corpus Christi Regional Transit Authority (RTA) Master Plan recommendations within the
project area?
Describe any recommendations included in this project.
Describe any recommendations NOT included in thus prcqect and reason for deferral:
Corpus Christi Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)
Are there Corpus Christi Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) recommendations within the
project area?
Describe any recommendations included in this project
Describe any recommendations NOT included in this project and reason for deferral:
Yes No
Yes No
Texas Department of Transportation (TXDOT)
Are any Texas Department of Transportation (TXDOTI projects within the project area? Yes No
If "yes", are there specific recommendations that fall within the project area?
Describe any recommendations included in this pro,ect:
Describe any recommendations NOT included in this project and reason for deferral:
Are there bus stops w thin the project area?
Describe average distances between bus stops in/or adjacent to the project area
If bus stops are less than 025 miles (1,320 ft.) apart, can stops be consolidated?
Describe which stops could be consolidated.
Describe any MobilityCC elements that will need to be addressed outside of this project and the
division or program responstle for implementation
How does the project accommodate bicycles, pedestruans, transit, freight, and traffic during
construction?
Describe mpacts to the funding schedule and/or other commitments as a result of incorporating
MobilityCC e;ements:
Are there any additional comments or considerations?
Yes No
, , ,
111111111111 (iii 1, o
A detailed roundabout feasibility study may include the following elements:
• Identify reasons for considering a roundabout as an improvement alternative at this
intersection.
• Identify the existing traffic operations and safety conditions at the intersection for
comparison with expected roundabout performance. Give detailed performance
comparisons (including delay, capacity, emissions, and/or interaction effects with
nearby intersections) of the roundabout with alternative control modes for existing
and future conditions.
• Identify a conceptual roundabout configuration, which includes the number of lanes
on each approach and the designation of those lanes.
• Demonstrate whether an appropriately sized and configured roundabout can be
implemented. Observations may include:
• Physical and right -of -way features
• Current and planned site development features such as adjoining businesses, driveways,
etc.
• Community considerations such as a need for parking, landscaping character, etc.
• Traffic management strategies that are being (or will be used) in the area.
• Existing and projected public transit usage (routes, stops, etc.).
• Intersection treatments at adjacent intersections.
• History of public complaints that suggest a need for traffic calming.
• Number of other roundabouts in the jurisdiction that would make drivers more familiar
with this type of control.
Identify all potential complicating factors, assess their relevance to the location, and
identify any mitigation efforts that might be required. Potential complicating factors may
include:
• Physical or geometric features that could make the construction or operation of a
roundabout more difficult.
• Land use or traffic generators that could interfere with construction or cause
operational problems.
• Other traffic control devices along any intersecting roadway which would require
preemption.
• Bottlenecks on any of the intersecting roadways that could back up traffic into the
roundabout.
• Sight distance obstructions.
• Platooned arterial traffic flow on one or more approaches.
• Heavy use by persons with special needs that could suggest a requirement for more
positive control.
• Recent safety projects in the area to benefit older drivers.
• Emergency vehicle operations coordination requirements.
• Emergency evacuation route coordination requirements.
• Other problems that have been identified.
Demonstrate institutional and community support, indicating that key institutions (e.g.,
police, fire department, and schools) and key community leaders have been consulted.
Include an economic analysis indicating that a roundabout compares favorably with
alternative control modes from a benefit -cost perspective.
Example Photos
,,tsi;wageztj
. .
,77„
ENE gin
2
2 If
r ' 1
4,44:Yt 41 yr, ior
40* :1,1116'
1 1111111111
Example single lane modem roundabouts in Clearwater, FL (1), Gainesville, FL (2), Bradenton Beach, FL
(3),Ontario, Canada (4), Paola, KS (5), and San Diego, CA (6).
179
luuw 11
:air l i 6,4
i, il pvdo
1111111'
„ ter`" „II IIIIIIII
A detailed road diet feasibility study may include the following elements:
• Roadway Characteristics and Context
• Existing lane configuration and intersection geometry
• Roadway function and environment (the existing and intended function of the candidate
roadway in terms of mobility and access, including number of mid -block driveways)
• Primary adjacent land uses and destinations
• Likelihood of frequently stopping and/or slow - moving vehicles (agriculture, buses, mail),
including transit routes and stops
• Crash types and patterns (typically, a five -year crash history is desirable)
• Existing pedestrian and bicycle volumes
• Presence of parallel routes
• Existing property values along study corridor
• Resident/business "before" survey
• Other contextual considerations
• Corridor Concepts/Typical Section Alternatives
• Traffic Operations
• Peak hour intersection turning volumes and patterns
• Traffic volumes along study corridor and parallel streets
• Existing corridor speeds (average, 85th percentile)
• Existing corridor travel times
• Existing on- street parking utilization (if applicable)
• Analysis of existing and future traffic volumes conditions
• Intersection level of service (LOS), delay, and queues
• Arterial travel time, average speed, and LOS
• Future conditions should typically be evaluated based on projected traffic volumes for a
20 -year horizon
• In some cases, a traffic simulation of the corridor may be necessary
• Implementation Steps
• Recommended typical section concept
• Traffic control and access management changes needed to support proposed project
• Right -of -way availability, costs, and acquisition impacts
• Construction cost estimate
• Coordination opportunities, such as pavement reconstruction or overlay project, or
jurisdictional roadway transfer
• Funding opportunities and /or strategies
Baxter Street in Athens, GA was converted from a four -lane undivided
roadway (top) to a three -lane roadway with shared bicycle areas
(bottom). Traffic volumes along the corridor were largely unchanged
(a decrease from approximately 19,000 ADT of only 3.7 percent), but
crash frequency decreased by over 53 percent compared to the before
condition.
A
181
Record of Change
Mobility-related Comprehensive Plan Elements
Adopted
1 Updates
MobilityCC
Urban Transportation Plan Text
Urban Transportation Plan
MPO Pedestrian & Bicycle Plan
HikeBikeCC
ADA Master Plan
ADA Master Plan
1SCP Mobility Concepts
Design Techniques
Operations & Maintenance
Urban Transportation Plan Map
MobilityCC Map
�
�
„„�
� � �
1
�
�m
11111 1111
List of Meetings
Energy Efficiency and Conservation Black Grant
Date Meeting Group
EECGG Work sess|pn'P|annin8'Deve|opmmnt�mm�mmy [n8|needn8,Parks and
October 4'5'JO1O ' Services,
Recreation and Stonmvxmter
19'Oct'10 EECBG Work session with transportation/mobility partners
3'Nmv'10 EECBG Project scoping/vetting/data gathering with Development Services staff
8-Dec-10 EECBG AM Meeting with internal members of Steering Committee
8-Dec-10 EECBG PM Meeting with external members of the Steering Committee
EECBG Charrette; all organization represented on Steering Committee invited to
March Z1'JS'2O1U
participate
4-Sep-li City Council Presentation
AlloDility[[
Date
Meeting Group
4-Jun-12
Meeting with stakeholders, Bold Future Regional Hike/Bike Committee
31`Avg'12
Meeting with city staif, Park5 and Recreation Department
4-Sep-12
Stakeholder meeting, Metropolitan Planning Organization staff
5-Sep-12
Meeting with city staff, Development Services
10'8ep'12
Internal retreat, Planning Staff
12-Sep-12
Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee
17-Sep-12
Bicycle & Pedestrian Subcommittee
20-Sep-12
MPO Transportation Advisory Committee
10-Oct-12
Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee status report/update
15-Oct-12
Meeting with citv staif, Parks and Recreation Department
15'Oct'12
Bicycle & Pedestrian Subcommittee status report/update
19-Oct-12
Stakeholder meeting with Bay Area Smart Growth lnitiative
22-Oct-12
Transportation Advisory Committee
. 31-Oct-12
Meeting with stakeholders, Regional Transit Authority staff
9'Nov12
Meeting with city staff, Engineering Services, Traffic Engineering
15-Nov-12
Meeting with city staff, Engineering Services
19-Nov-12
Bicycle and Pedestrian Subcommittee status report/update
4'Dec'12
Meeting with city staif, Parks and Recreation Department
15-Jmn'13
Meeting stakeholder Metropolitan Planning Organization status report/update
29-Jan-13
Meeting with Assistant City Manager
29-Jan-13
Meeting with city staif, Engineering Services
2-Feb-13
Meeting with stakeholders, Tax Assessor Association
8-Feb-13
Meeting with city staff, Development Services, Engineering and Legal staif
8 3
11- Feb -13
Meeting with Parks and Recreation Department Staff
20- Feb -13
Meeting with the Metropolitan Planning Organization status report/update
S- Mar -13
Meeting with CCISD Transportation Department
6- Mar -13
Meeting with Planning staff status report/update
8- Mar -13
Meeting with stakeholders, BoldFuture Regional Hike /Bike Trail Committee status
report /update
11- Mar -13
Meeting with Assistant City Manager
18- Mar -13
Bicycle and Pedestrian Subcommittee status report/update
21- Mar -13
Meeting with Parks and Recreation Department Staff
25- Mar -13
Meeting with Parks and Recreation Department Staff
4- Apr -13
Meeting with Engineering Department
25- Apr -13
Meeting with Street Operations
16- May -13
Meeting with the Metropolitan Planning Organization status report/update
22- May -13
Meeting with Parks and Recreation Department Staff
29- May -13
Meeting with Legal Department
6- Jun -13
Meeting with Parks and Recreation Department Staff
6-Jun-13
Meeting with Parks and Recreation Department status report/update
19- Jun -13
Meeting with Legal Department
25- Jun -13
Meeting with Planning staff status report/update
2- Jul -13
Meeting with Planning staff status report/update
15- Jul -13
Meeting with Assistant City Manager status report/update
18-Jul-13
Meeting with Parks and Recreation Department Staff
181u1 -13
Metropolitan Planning Organization Technical Advisory Committee meeting
1- Aug -13
Meeting with Engineering Department
2- Aug -13
Meeting with Utilities and Public Works
14- Aug -13
Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee status report/update
15- Aug -13
Stakeholders meeting with the Mayor's Fitness Council
16- Aug -13
Meeting with Development Services
19- Aug -13
Bicycle and Pedestrian Subcommittee plan approval
26- Aug -13
Transportation Advisory Committee plan approval
28- Aug -13
Planning Commission
7- Aug -13
Stakeholders meeting with Committee for Persons with Disabilities
24- 5ep -13
Meeting with Parks and Recreation Department Staff
,A PPENDIX
�VVVVI� N