Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 13, 2010 Agenda AGENDA CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL April 13, 2010 After determining in Open Session that a quorum is present, the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas will convene in a Closed Session on Tuesday, April 13, 2010 at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Work Session Room, 215 E. McKinney Street, Denton, Texas at which the following item will be considered: 1. Closed Meeting: A. Consultation with Attorneys - Under Texas Government Code Section 551.071 and Deliberations regarding Personnel Matters - Under Texas Government Code 551.074. 1. Consultation with the City's attorneys regarding legal issues associated with personnel matters involving the city manager, city attorney, and/or the municipal court judge where public discussion associated with these legal matters would clearly conflict with the duty of the City's attorneys to the City of Denton and the Denton City Council under the Texas Disciplinary of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of Texas. Discuss and deliberate the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal and/or hear a complaint or charge involving the city manager, city attorney, and/or the municipal court judge. Following the completion of the Closed Meeting, the Council will convene in a 2nd Tuesday Session at which the following items will be considered: NOTE: A 2nd Tuesday Session is used to explore matters of interest to one or more City Council Members or the City Manager for the purpose of giving staff direction into whether or not such matters should be placed on a future regular or special meeting of the Council for citizen input, City Council deliberation and formal City action. At a 2nd Tuesday Session, the City Council generally receives informal and preliminary reports and information from City staff, officials, members of City committees, and the individual or organization proposing council action, if invited by City Council or City Manager to participate in the session. Participation by individuals and members of organizations invited to speak ceases when the Mayor announces the session is being closed to public input. Although 2nd Tuesday Sessions are public meetings, and citizens have a legal right to attend, they are not public hearings, so citizens are not allowed to participate in the session unless invited to do so by the Mayor. Any citizen may supply to the City Council, prior to the beginning of the session, a written report regarding the citizen's opinion on the matter being explored. Should the Council direct the matter be placed on a regular meeting agenda, the staff will generally prepare a final report defining the proposed action, which will be made available to all citizens prior to the regular meeting at which citizen input is sought. The purpose of this procedure is to allow citizens attending the regular meeting the opportunity to hear the views of their fellow citizens without having to attend two meetings. 1. Receive a report and hold a discussion regarding the accommodation of bicycle facilities in the City of Denton. 2. Receive a report, hold a discussion and provide staff direction regarding the development of the "Governmental Category" development review process. City of Denton City Council Agenda April 13, 2010 Page 2 CERTIFICATE I certify that the above notice of meeting was posted on the bulletin board at the City Hall of the City of Denton, Texas, on the day of 2010 at o'clock (a.m.) (p.m.) CITY SECRETARY NOTE: THE CITY OF DENTON COUNCIL WORK SESSION ROOM IS ACCESSIBLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT. THE CITY WILL PROVIDE SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED IF REQUESTED AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE SCHEDULED MEETING. PLEASE CALL THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE AT 349-8309 OR USE TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES FOR THE DEAF (TDD) BY CALLING 1-800- RELAY-TX SO THAT A SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETER CAN BE SCHEDULED THROUGH THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE. AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: April 13, 2010 DEPARTMENT: Utility and CIP Engineering ACM: Howard Martin, 349-8232 SUBJECT Receive a report and hold a discussion regarding the accommodation of bicycle facilities in the City of Denton. BACKGROUND City staff was tasked with preparing a position or white paper on the status of bicycle connectivity and accommodation in the City of Denton. The publication of this paper was influenced by economic factors, associated projects, public feedback and changing organizational focus. 1. Spiking gasoline prices in 2008 piqued the City's and the public's interest in alternative modes of transportation. In late 2008, a consolidated committee of City personnel was assembled to look at options for connectivity. This committee was comprised of staff from Engineering, Water Utilities, Parks and Recreation, Denton Municipal Electric (DME), Environmental Department, Police, and Planning. 2. City Council approved the establishment of one-way traffic on Oak and Hickory Streets from Bonnie Brae Road to Jagoe Street and Avenue C and the establishment of No Parking zones over the same area on the north side of Oak Street and the south side of Hickory Street at their regular meeting on December 16, 2008. After that, staff with Utility and CIP Engineering (Engineering) evaluated the application or designation of bicycle lanes (restricted to Oak and Hickory Streets) at the request of City Council, not only in this area, but east of Jagoe Street and Avenue C all the way east to the railroad tracks east of Bell Avenue. The University of North Texas (UNT) expressed their support for the presence of these lanes on Oak and Hickory Streets across their campus despite the resultant removal of parking spaces and meters. Engineering staff facilitated a public meeting to garner input on the bicycle lanes and their attendant effects on parking at the July 6, 2009 meeting of the Traffic Safety. The basis for staffs presentation at the Traffic Safety Commission meeting, given that the defined corridor was restricted to Oak and Hickory Streets, was centered on the safe implementation of bicycle accommodation in this area that would comply with the spirit and intent of the Denton Development Code (DDC) and standard engineering practice. The recommended alternative presented by Engineering staff consisted of a "share the road" wide outside lane consistent with the secondary arterial standards of the DDC with little impact to neighborhood parking or street layouts. The feedback at the public meeting was decidedly negative from the affected neighborhoods (with the main objection being the removal of any parking) and from the bicycling community attendees (with the main objection being the absence of the provision of a dedicated, striped bicycle lane in the presented alternative). Inasmuch as the area studied directly impacted, traversed and included the downtown central business district; further analysis of this route was at that time deferred to the Downtown Implementation Plan effort led by the Planning Department. 3. Engineering staff continued to discuss concerns on bicycle connectivity to the downtown DCTA train station from and to various origins and destinations with internal personnel, City Council, DCTA and citizens. Staff solicited a proposal from Freese and Nichols, Inc. (FNI), a well-known and reputable regional engineering firm, to assist in this effort. The project manager for FNI proposed for this project is an avid bicyclist and senior transportation engineer with over 20 years experience including projects such as the 2011 Dallas Bike Plan, Dallas/Fort Worth Before/After Bikeway Study for NCTCOG, Comprehensive Bikeway Plan for the City of Houston, Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan for the City of San Angelo, Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan for the City of Corpus Christi, Multimodal Plan for Hidalgo County and the Lance Armstrong Bikeway in Austin. The possible hiring of a consultant was discussed at the Traffic Safety Commission, and a great deal of public feedback was generated on this possibility and with regard to the overall bicycling needs of Denton. For this reason and in anticipation of the preparation of the white paper, it was decided that a public meeting focusing on bicycle accommodation would be conducted in order to garner public feedback. 4. The public meeting was held on March 22, 2010 with a target audience primarily consisting of the Denton area cycling community. Notifications were sent via email to known bicycling groups (Bike Denton, Corinth Cycling Club and UNT Cycling Club) and flyers were given to local bicycle shops (Denton Bicycle Center, Bullseye Bike Shop and The Bicycle Path) to post and distribute to customers. In addition to notifying the bicycle groups and shops, a press release was issued through the City of Denton Public Information Officer, and the Denton Record Chronicle published an announcement in the local news section of the Wednesday, March 10, 2010 issue of their paper. The meeting was conducted at the Denton Civic Center, and attendees were asked to sign in and leave their name, address, and email. A total of 58 people signed the attendance sheet. Council Members Jim Engelbrecht and Dalton Gregory were also in attendance. A questionnaire was prepared and provided to the attendees in the interests of providing feedback to the consultant to be hired by the City. The meeting included a Power Point presentation by city staff that outlined current plans and codes from the city and some other planning organizations, bicycle manuals that could be used for design and guidance, other community bicycle plans, current mileage of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, the possible use of DME easements and drainage ways for bicycle corridors, and some potential future projects. Overall, the attendees appeared to appreciate City staff seeking their input. All of the attendees seemed very favorable to the City developing a plan to address bicycle facilities and to holding public meetings during the development process. Staff s research into other communities and regional bicycle plans was also met favorably. Attendees communicated a preference for a dedicated, striped bicycle lane versus a wide outside lane and concerns relative to a perceived insufficient emphasis being placed on safe routes to schools in the past. The observation was made that some Denton schools are located such that they require children to either ride alongside or cross major streets to get to the facilities. Staff researched a number of different sources to prepare this paper, including existing planning documents (the Denton Plan, the Denton Development Code, the Transportation Design Criteria Manual), existing law citations (primarily the Texas Transportation Code), various City and other municipal and public entities, and various design guidelines (AASHTO and FHWA manuals) and reports. Bicycle and pedestrian accommodations have been a part of City of Denton planning and engineering efforts for many years. WCLs are provided in all newly constructed (by development or CIP) arterial streets, shared pathways are provided on all newly constructed (by development or CIP) collector streets, and bicycles routinely utilize local or neighborhood streets. Bicycle accommodations, sidewalks and trails are implemented through a variety of avenues including the development process, CDBG programs, CIP projects and various other grants and funding opportunities. Over the past ten years approximately 18.5 miles of trails have been added through Denton parks, 83 miles of roadside trails and 2.5 miles of subdivision open space trails have been added, approximately 0.9 miles of striped bicycle lanes have been added on Hercules and Hickory, and approximately 11.34 miles of roads with a wide outside lane or WCL have been constructed. OPTIONS Staff is proceeding with plans to implement the following projects: 1. Staff is working with a property owner north of Lee Elementary to donate the ROW for the extension of Paisley from just east of Mack Drive to its current terminus west of Oak Valley. The ROW will be cleared and an all weather walking/bicycling pathway will be installed for connectivity and improved access for children attending Lee Elementary. 2. Staff is moving forward to restripe Eagle Drive from North Texas Boulevard to just west of Carroll Boulevard. The restripe will convert the roadway from a 4-lane undivided to a 3-lane (one lane in each direction with a continuous left) with striped bicycle lanes. 3. Staff is moving forward to restripe and possibly reconstruct a portion of Welch Street from Eagle Drive to Hickory Street. The restripe will convert the roadway from a 4-lane undivided to a 3-lane (one lane in each direction with a continuous left) with striped bicycle lanes. 4. Staff is working through the Downtown Implementation Plan (DTIP) process to look into the provision of bus and bicycle accommodation on Sycamore Street from Welch Street east to essentially the rails-to-trails corridor. Assuming that this process is successful, a bicycle corridor will be established between UNT and the new DCTA station with the listed modifications to Eagle and Welch. 5. Staff is looking at ways to achieve bicycle connectivity from TWU to the DCTA station similar to that underway from UNT. 6. Possible conversion of Malone Street from a 4-lane section to a 3-lane with bicycle lanes (depends on connectivity possibilities to other trails/routes). 7. Consolidated staff committee looking into the use of existing easements, sidewalks, pathways, streets, drainage corridors, etc. for pedestrian and bicycle connectivity and accommodation. 8. Negotiation of a consultant contract to develop a baseline bicycle master plan. 9. Exploring the possibility of the extension of a dedicated bicycle pathway between Chestnut Street and Union Circle across the UNT campus with funding through the UNT system. This connectivity would provide bicycle access across UNT from Avenue C to Welch Street. Some of these efforts will require the dedication of funding and the cooperation of multiple entities to realize their success. There are a variety of "moving pieces" that need to be considered as the City moves forward with bicycle, and pedestrian, accommodation. These considerations can and should translate into opportunities for the City to improve infrastructure to effect this accommodation: 1. Proceed with the hiring of the consultant to evaluate and catalog the City's existing assets and to develop an update to the City's Bicycle and Pedestrian Component of the Mobility Plan and to develop a Safe Routes to Schools map with assistance/cooperation from DISD. This action will help form the basis for possible Code and standards revisions and funding opportunities. 2. Staff has been approached by a professor with UNT about the possibility of graduate student participation in bicycle facilities planning, surveys, etc. This asset would be able to complement the efforts of the consulting firm mentioned herein above. Staff is also looking into the possible involvement of engineering staff or students from the University of Texas at Arlington (UTA). 3. The 1999 AASHTO manual discussed throughout the white paper is currently under revision with participation from the traffic/bicycle subconsultant that has been involved in the Downtown Implementation Plan. These changes may affect the approaches taken to accommodation. 4. Staff has been in communication with TxDOT regarding the possibility of bicycle accommodation on their on-system facilities in Denton. TxDOT has asked that the City continue with their bicycle plan update and to communicate back to the State any desired routes on their system. The City should be aware that this type of accommodation may well require the City to participate in the funding of facility widening and/or ROW acquisition. 5. The Planning Department is looking at the possibility of an update to the Denton Plan in the next year or two. This comprehensive document is the parent document to the Mobility Plan and all of its various components. It would be problematic to "blaze a trail" on the development of a comprehensive bicycle and pedestrian plan outside of this process, especially since issues such as development density, infill regulations, and parking regulations along with other Code amendments would need to be considered as part of a bicycle plan development. If Planning were currently underway with this update, the transportation component, including bicycles and pedestrians, would be under discussion and consideration for update as well. 6. The Finance Department is projecting that 2013 will be the earliest year that the next bond election will be held. Any significant projects brought forward as a result of the bicycle accommodation planning could fit in well with this schedule for consideration by a Blue Ribbon Bond Committee. 7. Staff is exploring the possible creation of a focus group or committee for bicycle accommodation. Staff has discussed the possible participation in such a group with internal personnel from the committee working on the consolidated connectivity plan for alternative transportation and with TxDOT and DISD personnel. All responses to date have been favorable. In addition, members of the various bicycle groups, representatives from TWU and UNT and possibly other internal staff (Fire, Planning, etc.) or commission/committee members can and should be considered for participation. This group would not only be in a position to contribute to the consultant preparation of the updated bicycle master plan, but could also be a resource for the ongoing consolidated connectivity plan for alternative transportation as well as updates to the Code and Denton Plan. 8. Staff is exploring avenues to increase public sensitivity and education towards bicycling and bicycle accommodation, possibly through aired spots on DTV that would discuss safety issues such as conflicts at driveways and intersections and proper bicycle movements (no wrong-way riding, no two-way riding, etc.). RECOMMENDATION The process of fostering bicycle and pedestrian connectivity and accommodation is not a simple matter. Many factors affect the ability to safely incorporate effective plans for such accommodation into the City of Denton's planning and engineering documents and projects. The shift in focus or consideration from motorized vehicles to alternative forms of transportation is not only worthwhile from the perspectives of public health benefit and resource conservation, but also from the perspective that the eventual presence of facilities for such accommodation will be economically desirable to citizens in the future as fuel prices climb. The white paper attempts to outline the background and origins of the current state of bicycle, and to an extent pedestrian, connectivity and accommodations in Denton; to present some legal, design and economic considerations for various forms of accommodation; to provide information with regard to ongoing projects that are beneficial to bicycle connectivity; and to present some information on opportunities available to the City as it moves forward with this process. The first step recommended is to catalog the City's existing assets and to make a more determined effort at surveying the populace for feedback on a base level bicycle master plan or map. Staff will move forward with contract negotiations with the consultant that has submitted a proposal for this effort and will provide this consultant with all of the information garnered from other municipalities and entities and all of the citizen feedback and forms collected to date. In addition, it is recommended that a focus/stakeholder group be established to consider and contribute to matters involving bicycle accommodation and that alternatives for public education be explored. Staff will continue to seek out information on the updates to the 1999 AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities inasmuch as this document could affect the planning for bicycle integration into the City's projects and criteria. Staff will be meeting with UNT research personnel to discuss their possible involvement in the process and possible contributions from graduate students. These steps will provide the basis for moving forward with the formulation of possible capital projects in anticipation of the next bond election, will provide the groundwork and backup data needed to help with the eventual update to the Denton Plan, and will help the City provide information to TxDOT for possible accommodations in conjunction with on-system projects. It is not recommended that the City undertake a complete revision to the City's Code, criteria and standards involving bicycle and pedestrian accommodations at this time in advance of the Denton Plan update. Staff will continue to look into the possibility of incorporating countermeasures such as those discussed in this paper to increase the level of safety and recognition of the presence of bicycles on the City's existing road system and will continue to look for opportunities to incorporate dedicated bicycle lanes on existing streets where appropriate. Obviously, funding levels and liability concerns will need to be addressed as various measures are employed or recommendations are brought forth for consideration. Staff will work with its consultant to do further research on the criteria and possibilities for funding opportunities. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW Not applicable. FISCAL INFORMATION Not applicable at this time. EXHIBITS 1. "Bicycle Connectivity in Denton, Texas - Overview, Options and Opportunities" 2. Presentation Respectfully submitted: l7~ ' rl Ir f Frank G. Payne, P.E. City Engineer THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK BICYCLE CONNECTIVITY IN DENTON, TEXAS OVERVIEW, OPTIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES 9 Frank G. Payne, P.E. Utility and CIP Engineering April 13, 2010 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK TABLE OF CONTENTS L INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................4 II. BACKGROUND 6 Gasoline Prices ..........................................................................................................................................6 Oak and Hickory Streets 6 Proposal Solicitation 7 Public Meeting 8 III. EXISTING PLANNING DOCUMENTS .......................................................................................10 The Denton Plan 1999-2020 Comprehensive Plan of the City of Denton, Texas ..................................10 The Citv of Denton Mobility Plan ..........................................................................................................11 Denton Development Code .....................................................................................................................16 Citv of Denton Transportation Design Criteria Manual .........................................................................17 Parks, Recreation & Trail System Master Plan .......................................................................................19 University of North Texas Campus Bicycle Master Plan 22 North Central Texas Council of Governments Veloweb ........................................................................24 IV. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................................................28 V. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ..........................................................................................................31 Inventory, of Existing Conditions 35 Bicycle User Groups 36 Types of Bicycle Accommodations 37 Countermeasures 38 VI. OTHER MUNICIPALITIES/ENTITIES 40 VII. POTENTIAL COSTS AND FUNDING OPTIONS .......................................................................43 Other Municipalities 43 Local Projected Costs .............................................................................................................................44 Funding Options ......................................................................................................................................44 2 VIII. ONGOING ACCOMMODATIONS 49 IX. OPPORTUNITIES 1 X. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 53 APPENDIX A - Presentation from March 22, 2010 Public Meeting APPENDIX B - Summary, of Feedback from March 22, 2010 Public Meeting 3 I. INTRODUCTION The City, of Denton has an extensive roadway, system, consisting of a number of different sizes and classifications of roadways. Transportation in Denton has historically focused on the movement of motor vehicles between various destinations, but the Citv and its citizens have been concerned with the consideration of alternative modes of transportation, primarily pedestrian and bicycle, for many years. For example, the City of Denton's 1974 twenty year comprehensive plan dedicated a section of the document to discussing the provision of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. In 1999, the City of Denton adopted the Denton Plan 1999-2020, which is a comprehensive plan for the continuing growth of the city and which also discussed the need to advance the accommodation of bicycle facilities in the City's infrastructure. The adoption of the Denton Plan was followed up with the Denton Development Code in 2002 along with a number of design criteria manuals and details setting forth the minimum standards for use by developers and engineers in the design of public infrastructure. Some of the planning and design focus on transportation systems based primarily on motor vehicle movements has begun to shift in the past few years in Denton. With spiking gas prices in 2008, an increased sensitivity and interest in multi-modal and alternative transportation was evidenced. The Denton County Transportation Authority (DCTA) and the Citv of Denton are working cooperatively to bring commuter rail and the attendant facilities to Denton in the coming few years. Entities are focusing on funding opportunities for all types of transportation improvements, including pedestrian and bicycle connectivitv and accommodation. All of these factors have led staff with the CAN, to a. Assemble a focus group to explore different options to implement alternative transportation corridors for pedestrians and bicyclists on City streets, trail systems, and easements. b. Explore the hiring of a firm to come up with an updated Pedestrian and Bicycle Linkage Component of the Denton Mobility Plan, to flesh out various funding opportunitv and to establish a basis for Safe Routes to Schools program participation. c. Seek out input from the bicycling community on needs, concerns and safety. d. Design layout and striping changes to several major roadways to accommodate bicycles and improve linkages. Pedestrian accommodation has been enhanced over the years with specific design criteria and provisions in State and local transportation projects, with the construction of sidewalks, trails and bridges; and with funding from bond packages, Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding, other grant funding and development exactions. The intent of this paper is to focus more on the accommodation of bicycles and to serve as a formal first step in the process of expanding the consideration and the design of facilities that specifically consider bicycles, bicycle movements, bicycle conflicts and bicycle safety in 4 public infrastructure projects. As stated in the Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 1999), although "recreational cycling is still the primary use of bicycles in this country, the number of people using bicycles for commuting and other travel purposes has been increasing since the early 1970s. Nationwide, people are recognizing the energy efficiency, cost effectiveness, health benefits and environmental advantages of bicycling." A summary, of the background or basis behind the preparation of this paper is presented, followed by a listing of some of the various existing documents that already provide for the accommodation of bicycles in Denton. A cursory review of relevant factors from the Texas Transportation Code and the measures pursued by other communities and entities is included. Design considerations, costs and possible funding opportunities are also presented. Finally, possible "next steps" or options for moving forward are discussed. 5 II. BACKGROUND The genesis of this paper has followed a circuitous route, influenced by economic factors, associated projects, public feedback and changing organizational focus. This section will attempt to summarize the background and basis for the preparation of this paper. Gasoline Prices Spiking gasoline prices in 2008 helped to "fuel" the City's and the public's interest in alternative modes of transportation. In late 2008, a consolidated committee of City personnel was assembled to look at options for connectivity. This committee was comprised of staff from Engineering, Water Utilities, Parks and Recreation, Denton Municipal Electric (DME), Environmental Department, Police, and Planning. A massive planning level electronic document was generated that included the existing Street Plan, the existing sidewalk network, Mobilitv Plan, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Component of the Mobilitv Plan, the Connectivitv Component of the Mobilitv Plan, various Parks trails and connections, various DME easements, various utility and drainage easements, the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) Veloweb and the Universitv of North Texas (UNT) Campus Bicycle Master Plan. The intent of the committee and the resulting electronic document was to begin the tabulation of existing assets and possible alternatives for connectivity for alternative modes of transportation. The committee identified a number of concerns that would need to be considered as the process moved forward: Lack of funding for the development and implementation of new facilities; Lack of funding for additional right-of-way (ROW) or easements for new facilities; Safety issues for the routes, including the mixture of pedestrian, bicyclists and motor vehicles; Varying skill levels of bicyclists; Safety education programs for bicyclists, pedestrians, motorists and law enforcement personnel; Impacts to capacity on affected streets; and Impacts to parking availability. Oak and Hickory Streets Citv Council approved the establishment of one-way traffic on Oak and Hickory Streets from Bonnie Brae Road to Jagoe Street and Avenue C and the establishment of No Parking zones over the same area on the north side of Oak Street and the south side of Hickory Street at their regular meeting on December 16, 2008. After that, staff with Utilitv and CIP Engineering (Engineering) evaluated the application or designation of bicycle lanes (restricted to Oak and Hickory Streets) at the request of Citv Council, not only in this area, but east of Jagoe Street and Avenue C all the way east to the railroad tracks east of Bell Avenue. The University of North Texas (UNT) expressed their support for the presence of these lanes on Oak and Hickory Streets across their campus despite the resultant removal of parking spaces and meters. Engineering staff facilitated a public meeting to garner input on the bicycle lanes and their attendant effects on parking at the July 6, 2009 meeting of the Traffic Safety Commission and had planned on a 6 presentation to the Historic Landmark Commission, which presides over the Oak-Hickory and West Oak Historic Districts, on July 13, 2009 to vet these possible changes as prescribed by the Denton Development Code. The basis for staff's presentation at the Traffic Safety Commission meeting, given that the defined corridor was restricted to Oak and Hickory Streets, was centered on the safe implementation of bicycle accommodation in this area that would comply with the spirit and intent of the Denton Development Code (DDC) and standard engineering practice. "Safe, convenient and well- designed facilities are essential to encourage bicycle use" (AASHTO, 1999). The recommended alternative presented by Engineering staff consisted of a "share the road" wide outside lane consistent with the secondary arterial standards of the DDC with little impact to neighborhood parking or street layouts. The feedback at the public meeting was decidedly negative from the affected neighborhoods (with the main objection being the removal of any parking) and from the bicycling community attendees (with the main objection being the absence of the provision of a dedicated, striped bicycle lane in the presented alternative). Inasmuch as the area studied directly impacted, traversed and included the downtown central business district; further analysis of this route was at that time deferred to the Downtown Implementation Plan effort led by the Planning Department. A presentation to the Historic Landmark Commission was subsequently deferred. Proposal Solicitation Engineering staff continued to discuss concerns on bicycle connectivitv to the downtown DCTA train station from and to various origins and destinations with internal personnel, Citv Council, DCTA and citizens. Staff solicited a proposal from Freese and Nichols, Inc. (FNI), a well-known and reputable regional engineering firm, to assist in this effort. The project manager for FNI proposed for this project is an avid bicyclist and senior transportation engineer with over 20 years experience including projects such as the 2011 Dallas Bike Plan, Dallas/Fort Worth Before/After Bikeway Study for NCTCOG, Comprehensive Bikeway Plan for the Citv of Houston, Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan for the Citv of San Angelo, Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan for the Citv of Corpus Christi, Multimodal Plan for Hidalgo County and the Lance Armstrong Bikeway in Austin. The deliverables for this study include: a. The identification and confirmation of key bicycling origins and destinations, verified at a minimum through interviews with City staff and UNT and Texas Women's University (TWU) representatives. Public input will also be sought and provided to FNI. b. Review and update of the Citv staff efforts on the consolidated plan for connectivitv for alternative modes of transportation discussed herein. This effort will ultimately result in the preparation of a "master plan" for bicycle connectivity through an update to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Component of the Mobilitv Plan. 7 c. Preparation of possible additional standard street cross sections from those currently shown in the Denton Development Code and Transportation Design Criteria Manual, including accommodation of bicycles off-street, on side paths, and on-street. d. Assessment of the existing collector and arterial roadways for needed improvements to accommodate bicycle travel. In addition, planned roadways would be identified in terms of their recommended cross sections to accommodate bicyclists. e. Graphical representations of short and long term bicycle facilities network and a listing of proposed projects for improvements. f Public meetings. The possible hiring of a consultant was discussed at the Traffic Safety Commission, and a great deal of public feedback was generated on this possibilitv and with regard to the overall bicycling needs of Denton. For this reason and in anticipation of the preparation of this paper, it was decided that a public meeting focusing on bicycle accommodation would be conducted in order to garner public feedback. Public Meeting The public meeting was held on March 22, 2010 with a target audience primarily consisting of the Denton area cycling community. Notifications were sent via email to known bicycling groups (Bike Denton, Corinth Cycling Club and UNT Cycling Club) and flyers were given to local bicycle shops (Denton Bicycle Center, Bullseve Bike Shop and The Bicycle Path) to post and distribute to customers. In addition to notifi ing the bicycle groups and shops, a press release was issued through the City of Denton Public Information Officer, and the Denton Record Chronicle published an announcement in the local news section of the Wednesday, March 10, 2010 issue of their paper. The meeting was conducted at the Denton Civic Center, and attendees were asked to sign in and leave their name, address, and email. A total of 58 people signed the attendance sheet. Council Members Jim Engelbrecht and Dalton Gregor, were also in attendance. A questionnaire was prepared and provided to the attendees in the interests of providing feedback to the consultant to be hired by the Citv. The meeting included a Power Point presentation by city staff that outlined current plans and codes from the citv and some other planning organizations, bicycle manuals that could be used for design and guidance, other community bicycle plans, current mileage of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, the possible use of DME easements and drainage ways for bicycle corridors, and some potential future projects. The presentation is included herein as Appendix A. 8 Attendees to the meeting were separated into groups and provided with a city street map and markers. The groups were charged with identifying three sets of origins and destinations important to them and with highlighting routes that they would use to get from the origins to the destinations. The final part of the meeting was dedicated to verbal feedback from the audience. Overall, the attendees appeared to appreciate Citv staff seeking their input. All of the attendees seemed verv favorable to the Citv developing a plan to address bicycle facilities and to holding public meetings during the development process. Staff's research into other communities and regional bicycle plans was also met favorably. Attendees communicated a preference for a dedicated, striped bicycle lane versus a wide outside lane and concerns relative to a perceived insufficient emphasis being placed on safe routes to schools in the past. The observation was made that some Denton schools are located such that they require children to either ride alongside or cross major streets to get to the facilities. Notes on citizen comments and feedback collected at the meeting are included herein as Appendix B. 9 III. EXISTING PLANNING DOCUMENTS There are a number of different documents or plans that provide for or mention bicycle accommodation within their context. These documents provide a historical and current basis for the development of bicycle facilities in Denton. The Denton Plan 1999-2020 Comprehensive Plan of the City of Denton, Texas 4 In December of 1999, the City Council adopted the "The Denton Plan 1999-2020." The Denton Plan set forth goals for what the City should look like by the year 2020. Chapter seven of the plan addresses Denton's transportation goals for RLAN r r, the year 2020 and pages 145-146 speak directly to pedestrians and bicycles. Goals and strategies were defined for pedestrian and bicycle transportation facilities. The goals listed for these types of facilities were listed as: "To increase walking and bicycling. Create desirable, safe, convenient environments that are conducive to walking and bicycling." The strategies listed were more comprehensive in nature: 1. "Create an urban trails system to facilitate walking and bicycling as viable transportation choices, provide recreational opportunities, and link major parks and open spaces with Denton neighborhoods. 2. Integrate pedestrian and bike facilities, services, and programs into both city-wide and regional transportation svstems. 3. Provide these features: pedestrian amenities and weather protection; safe and convenient pedestrian and bike access to transit stops, centers, and stations; adequate lighting, security, and 10 other improvements for persons with disabilities and special needs; bike capacitv on buses, rail, and other modes; and covered, secure bicycle parking at transit centers and stations. 4. Recognize the importance of walking and the contribution it makes to personal mobility and to the environment. Improve the pedestrian environment throughout the city. 5. Designate key pedestrian streets within the highest-densitv portions of activitv and neighborhood centers. Design and operate these streets to be safe and attractive for pedestrians, improve access to transit, encourage street-level activitv, and facilitate social interaction. Integrate pedestrian facilities into improvements on these streets. 6. Accelerate the improvement of pedestrian facilities and develop new ones throughout the city. Increase pedestrian activity, enhance pedestrian safety, and promote a pleasant walking environment. Provide recommended school walking routes, access to transit, access for people with disabilities, and access to and within activitv and neighborhood center environments. 7. Maintain direct, continuous bicycle routes, and make all appropriate streets bicycle-friendly. Accelerate development of bicycle facilities in, around, and between mixed use centers, neighborhood centers, and other key locations. Facilitate bicycling, where appropriate, with separate trails or bicycle lanes." To facilitate all of the new goals and strategies in the Denton Plan almost all of the City's design and planning documents had to change or be updated, leading to the creation of a new Development Code (DDC) and design criteria manuals. The City's Mobility Plan was included in the adopted Denton Plan. The City of Denton Mobility Plan The Citv of Denton Mobilitv Plan is comprised of four separate maps: Roadway Component, Connectivity Component, Pedestrian and Bicycle Linkage Component, and Rail and Trucking Component. Together, all of the maps help to provide for transportation planning throughout the City of Denton. Out of the four maps, the Roadway Component and the Pedestrian and Bicycle Linkage Component most heavily affect bicycle facilities in Denton. 1. Roadway Component - Denton's 1988 Thoroughfare Plan was replaced by the Roadway Component of the Denton Mobilitv Plan through City Council adoption of Resolution No. R98- 065. This map has been amended a number of different times and, as discussed, was included as a component of the Denton Plan upon that document's adoption. Denton roads are classified as 11 residential, collector, secondary arterial, primary arterial, or freeway. The Roadway Component of the Citv of Denton Mobilitv Plan is a map that identifies the classification of existing and future roadways in the Citv. The map also identifies whether or not existing streets are built to classification standards. Many of Denton roadways are not built to full classification standards (meaning they currently exist at a capacity, or condition less than that designated on the map). Knowing where these existing and future roadways are, their classifications, and whether they meet classification standards is an extremely useful tool for Citv staff as well as for developers and citizens. As the Citv develops, these roadway capacities can be built or brought to classification standards as part of a particular development or capital improvement program (CIP) projects. 2. Pedestrian and Bicycle Linkage Component - The purpose of the Pedestrian and Bicycle Linkages Component of the Citv of Denton Mobility is to establish guidelines to facilitate pedestrian mobility and the use of non-motorized vehicles. Similar to the Roadway Component of the Citv of Denton Mobility Plan, the Pedestrian and Bicycle Linkage Component was created to serve as a planning tool in the development of pedestrian and bicycle facilities throughout Denton. This map was adopted by the City of Denton Council on April 3, 2001 by ordinance 2001-147. Ordinance 2001-147 provided a discussion of non-motorized transportation modes: 1. Sidewalks were seen as the most basic off-street transportation network and emphasis was given to making sidewalks readily available along citv streets and throughout neighborhoods. The ordinance stated that sidewalks should be given priority consideration in funding and development. 2. Bicycle and Pedestrian Trails - The bicycle and pedestrian trails provide dual service for bicycles and pedestrians. The trails were to be eight feet in width without obstructions and were intended to be placed in street right-of-way as well as off-street right-of-ways. When placed along roadways, a preferred separation of three or more feet between the trail and roadway was listed. 3. Bike Routes - Bike routes are meant to link with bike trails, encourage bicycle use, and provide continuous paths between residential, recreational, employment, and shopping areas of the city. Bike routes should generally be considered on collector streets and other streets where the average speed of traffic does not exceed 40 miles per hour. Routes shall also be considered along paths parallel to heavily traveled arterial streets and in the outside lanes when designated. Routes shall be in the direction of traffic only and not against the flow of traffic. 12 4. Greenwav Corridors - Citv staff saw greenway corridors as the most visionary aspects of the Mobilitv Plan. Greenwav corridors are natural settings meant to provide transportation connections for commuters and to accommodate a diversity of recreational activities such as walking, .jogging, bicycling, equestrian trails, interpretive areas, bird watching, picnicking, and sightseeing. Input from the public was concentrated primarily on the need for bicycle trails with an overwhelming request for single track dirt bike trails. The second largest request was for trails similar to the White Rock Lake Trail. 13 AMITILITY RO MEAN PLAN n i I i 1 14 i I li i I I i I I _..ai 1,5,,.~s~..,<..,,.~s~..,<..,,.~s~..,<..,,.~s~..,<..,,.~s~..,<..,,.~s~..,<..,,.~s~..,<..,,.~s~..,<..,,.~s~..,<..,,.~s~..,<..,,.~s~..,<..,,.~s~..,<..,,.~s~..,<..,,~. s . Denton Development Code The adoption of The Denton Plan required a comprehensive rewrite of the City of Denton's zoning and development regulations. On February 5, 2002 the Citv Council adopted a new development code, The Denton Development Code (DDC), by ordinance 2002-040. Section 35.20.4 Pedestrian/Bicycle Facility Standards mandates: "All developments shall provide for the pedestrian and bicycle facilities necessary to serve pedestrian/bicycle traffic to, from or across the development in accordance with the Transportation Criteria Manual and the Bicycle/Pedestrian component of the Mobility Plan. If a development is proposed within a''/2 mile of public elementary or secondary school, a pedestrian TIA will be required to determine the appropriate size and location of sidewalks and bicycle facilities to serve those uses". The following types of facilities are discussed in the DDC: 1. Sidewalks are used on residential and arterial roadways and are intended for pedestrian traffic only. On residential streets traffic volume is low and bicyclists can use the roadways to get around. The low volume and speed of motorist traffic on these streets allow for the bicyclists and motorists to avoid and accommodate each other. 2. On Road Bicycle Paths are to be provided on arterial roadways. This type of facility is a shared wide outside lane. The wider lane is intended to provide enough operating space for advanced bicyclists (defined by AASHTO as an "A" bicycle user type) and motorists to navigate the lane. Basic and child bicycle riders are discouraged from using these roadways. AASHTO states that advanced or experienced bicycle riders "are typically more comfortable riding with motor vehicle traffic; however, they need sufficient operating space on the traveled way or shoulder to eliminate the need for either themselves or a passing motor vehicle to shift position." 3. The Off Road Combination Pedestrian and Bicycle Paths were stated to be located along side collectors and freeways. These paths are intended to be eight feet in width and are intended for use by bicycle and pedestrian traffic. Currently the City has not placed any of these paths along freeways. Three different facility types were chosen to accommodate a wide range of bicycle user types. The facility and user types are consistent with recommendations made by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) publication No. FHWA-RD-92-073 and are used in the 1999 AASHTO Guide for the development of bicycle facilities (a more detailed discussion can be found in the Design Considerations 16 section of this report). User types defined by FHWA are : A - Advanced Bicyclists; B - Basic Bicyclists; and C - Children. The FHWA recommends designing facilities based on two broad classes of user types: A and B/C. Generally speaking, users B/C are not encouraged to use arterial roadways due to the high volumes and speeds of motor traffic. The A users are considered capable of operating under most traffic conditions given sufficient space on arterial streets. User groups A and B/C can all operate on low volume/low speed residential streets. The volume and speed of motorized vehicles increase on collector streets, and both user groups are provided an eight foot combination pedestrian and bicycle path off the roadway. Only group A users are recommended to use arterial streets and are provided operating space with wide curb lanes. This widened lane, specifically without striping, discourages group B/C from using roadways that have higher volumes and speeds while providing group A users facilities on most larger roadway types. Group B/C users should ideally find alternate routes that have lower motor vehicle volumes and speeds when traveling to destinations connected by arterial roadways. Street Type of Facility Bicycle User Classification Pedestrian Bicycle FHWA Residential Sidewalk Street A, B/C Collector 8' Combination Pedestrian & Bicycle Path A, B/C Arterial Sidewalk Shared wide curb A lane The DDC states that all developments shall provide sidewalks and/or bicycle facilities. Although it is not stated in the DDC, citv staff designs and constructs projects to the same requirements placed on developers. City of Denton Transportation Design Criteria Manual As stated, the adoption of The Denton Plan required a comprehensive rewrite of the City of Denton's zoning and development regulations. A parallel effort to this task involved the development of new design criteria manuals (booklets spelling out the detailed, technical design requirements for a particular type of infrastructure) intended to complement the DDC in order to meet the requirements of the Denton Plan. The Transportation Design Criteria Manual provides design requirements for all transportation modes, including bicycles. 17 The following criteria are listed in the Transportation Design Criteria Manual in reference to pedestrian and bicvcle facilities: 1. The geometric standards section of the Transportation Criteria Manual provides a great deal of information, including details of Denton's handicap accessible ramps, descriptions of the alignment and location of sidewalk and bicycle facilities, lists of materials to be used, states that meters and cleanouts cannot be located in the sidewalk or bicycle facility, and gives standard sections for sidewalk and bicycle facilities. Manhole lids are allowed in sidewalks or bicycle facilities but must be flush with the surface of the facility. Sidewalks and 8' combination pedestrian and bicycle path can be constructed of concrete or solid pavers. On-road facilities can be constructed of concrete, asphalt, or solid pavers. 2. The bicycle amenities section states that materials used for bicycle parking and bridges shall be constructed of non- or low-maintenance materials. Bridges and drainage crossings must be able to support maintenance vehicles and be able to pass a 100-year storm without overtopping. 3. The pedestrian/bicycle traffic impact analysis (TIA) section gives the methodology and report requirements that are to be used in developing a PTIA. 4. In the Street Design section of the Transportation Criteria Manual, standard street and alley cross sections are shown. There are a total of 13 different street sections that can generally be categorized into three groups (residential, collectors, and arterials). The following are representative sections from each group to illustrate the intended locations of pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Residential - Low volumes and speeds of motor vehicle traffic: 18 Collector - Higher volume and speeds of motor vehicle traffic: Arterials - High volumes and speeds of motor vehicle traffic, possibly involving significant truck and commercial vehicle mix as well: Parks, Recreation & Trail System Master Plan Most of the City of Denton's greenbelt corridors and trails have been developed through the Parks and Recreation Department, either through development exactions or various avenues of funding. In 2009, the Parks and Recreation Department developed the Parks, Recreation & Trail System Master Plan. This plan included specific recommendations for park expansions, trail linkages, and park development to serve the growing population and needs of Denton. During the development of the Trail Master Plan, public input was collected through focus groups, public meetings, and telephone surveys. The telephone surveys consisted of 400 telephone responses (100 in 19 each Council district). Respondents were given a series of questions and asked to respond with a ranking based on a 1 to 4 scale (1 being not needed and 4 being definitelv needed). The respondents rated the most needed facility as being more trails for walking/biking that are connected throughout the city. Approximately 76% of respondents rated this with a 3 or 4 rating. The plan created a Trail Master Plan that is shown on the next page. 20 r sa 21 University of North Texas Campus Bicycle Master Plan The Universitv of North Texas (UNT) developed the University of North Texas Campus Bicycle Master Plan in 2006. The stated purpose of the plan was "To develop a comprehensive system of bicycle infrastructure that encourages bicycle use at UNT, provides good connections to the surrounding area, and meets the needs of students, faculty, staff,, and visitors of UNT." The main components of the UNT plan included the Campus Core, the Eagle Point Connection and the Route to Research Park. Campus Core ~w q t 6 rte.;. 'f~.. C ~ A., 1 5 q ` aYtl6 [ U N a waa~ :ar -i v { AWO The campus core is bound by University of North Texas Boulevard, Welch, Mulberry, and 11-135E. The campus core component of the UNT plan had to overcome regulations restricting bicycle use on the main campus. The plan recommended removal of these restrictions. UNT has subsequently begun allowing bicycle use in the campus core. 22 Eagle Point Connection aK t . t ~ e Y' v« Ter, The Eagle Point component of the plan addressed connecting bicyclists to the campus areas south of IH35E (where the new stadium project is located). One of the projects proposed in the plan was a pedestrian/bicycle bridge over IH35E to provide safe passage to the Eagle Point area. The planned expansion of IH35E includes a bridge at North Texas Boulevard and the pedestrian bridge. 23 Route to Research Park !r { L1 j The proposed Route to Research Park is intended to provide connectivity between the campus core and the research park facility on U.S. Hwy. 77 (old TI building). None of the UNT plans have been coordinated with the City's CIP program or the Mobility Plan. North Central Texas Council of Governments Veloweb Mobility 2030 is a regional plan produced by the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) that is comprised of various modes of transportation for the North Central Texas region and that sets goals and strategies out to year 2030. Chapter 15 of the plan addresses pedestrian/bicycle 24 systems for the region, stating that NCTCOG has a regional goal of eight percent combined alternate transportation mode share. Chapter 15 cites a FHWA study that found the following to be true about citv plans of this nature: "Those that have been successful share one trait: they provide routes for bicycle traffic away, from high volume, high speed roadways." It goes on to list examples of cities that have been successful in their efforts: Davis, CA; Portland, OR, Seattle, WA; Denver, CO; and Boulder, CO. The Veloweb is a 644 mile, designated off-street trail network for the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex, primarily intended for use inainly by fast-moving bicyclists. Trails in the Veloweb tend to follow rail lines and other non-road corridors (such as major drainage and easement corridors). The primary design considerations of the Veloweb include: 1. Minimum 12 foot width for heavily traveled multiuse trails; 2. 16 to 24 foot Veloweb sections may be warranted along portions of the Veloweb experiencing high peak pedestrian volumes due to the proximity to transit stations, sporting events, and/or other ina*or venues. Veloweb sections should be sized with a pedestrian level of service analysis to meet those demands; 3. Markings and travel speed to meet minimum safety standards for bicycle traffic; 4. Long-lasting impervious surface; 5. Grade separated crossing of roadways with significant traffic flows; 6. A design speed of 25 miles per hour; 7. Traffic circle intersections with minor roadways where conflicts are a concern; 8. Few, if any, signalized or stop sign intersections; 9. Easy access from roadways, particularly on-street bicycle routes; and 10. Easy access to common trip destinations. All of these design considerations concentrate around the need to provide trails that bicyclists can navigate at fast speeds with no or minimal interaction with motor vehicle traffic. The Veloweb identifies three trails in the Citv of Denton as seen on the following page. The green trail shown is the existing rails-to-trails corridor that will parallel the new Denton County Transportation Authority (DCTA) rail line. The yellow trail that is shown extending north and east of the end of the DCTA line parallels Mingo Road. The blue trail that is shown extending south and west from the end of the DCTA line parallels U.S. Highway 377. Only the rails-to-trails section of the Veloweb in Denton is identified as being constructed. 25 i i i i ~ 4 r 26 Downtown Implementation Plan (Currently in Development) The Downtown Implementation Plan's (DTIP) goal is to work as a catalyst to achieve the goals defined and adopted in the Denton Downtown Master Plan. The plan is currently in development phase and has not yet been released. It will address bicycle facilities contained in the downtown central business district area, as well as bicycle connections from UNT and Texas Women's University (TWU) to the new DCTA rail station. y,y y4 4 K 3 " ~I" P 1, ,1 i , '41 'A " r +Niww,. M' IIIIM~ IR 111r11b ■ iMY1M A h YS.h ,N~, N' fIWOi fR MYMM. M sR A,. y y o ~t ask z~ n n Y~ .x Z ? x U t 1 J -JAI FSx 1~ u r 5 1.<. A.. ry~sAi s Yf. 4 27 IV. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS In addition to the DDC and other provisions in the City's Code of Ordinances, the interaction and accommodation of bicycles on public roadways is defined or affected by various sections of the Texas Transportation Code. For example, among other things under Title 7 - Vehicles and Traffic, Subtitle C - Rules of the Road, the following items are listed: 1. Chapter 542 - General Provisions states that this section applies only to "the operation of a vehicle on a highway unless the provision specifically applies to a different place" and defines a "through highway" as a highway or a portion of a highway on which "vehicular traffic is given preferential right-of-way" and "vehicular traffic entering from an intersecting highway is required by law to yield right-of-way in compliance with an official traffic-control device." The salient point being the deference stated to the vehicular traffic. 2. Chapter 545 - Operation and Movement of Vehicles includes the following: a. "An operator of a vehicle on a roadway moving more slowly than the normal speed of other vehicles at the time and place under the existing conditions shall drive in the right-hand lane available for vehicles, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, unless the operator is: (1) passing another vehicle; or (2) preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway." b. "An operator being passed by another vehicle: (1) shall, on audible signal, move or remain to the right in favor of the passing vehicle; and (2) may not accelerate until completely passed by the passing vehicle." c. "A limitation in this section on driving on an improved shoulder does not apply to: (1) an authorized emergency vehicle responding to a call; (2) a police patrol; or (3) a bicycle." d. "On a roadway that is designated and on which signs are erected for one-way traffic, an operator shall drive only in the direction indicated." e. "The Texas Transportation Commission by resolution or order recorded in its minutes may prohibit the use of a limited-access or controlled-access highway under the .jurisdiction of the commission by a parade, funeral procession, pedestrian, bicycle, electric bicycle, motor- driven cycle, or nonmotorized traffic." 28 f "A local authority by ordinance may prohibit the use of a limited-access or controlled-access roadway under the .jurisdiction of the authority by a parade, funeral procession, pedestrian, bicycle, electric bicycle, motor-driven cycle, or nonmotorized traffic." g. "To make a right turn at an intersection, an operator shall make both the approach and the turn as closely as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway." h. "An operator may not turn the vehicle to enter a private road or driveway, otherwise turn the vehicle from a direct course, or move right or left on a roadway unless movement can be made safely." i. "A person may stop, stand, or park a bicycle on a sidewalk if the bicycle does not impede the normal and reasonable movement of pedestrian or other traffic on the sidewalk." _j. "A person commits an offense if the person drives a vehicle in wilful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property." k. "A person may not: (1) open the door of a motor vehicle on the side available to moving traffic, unless the door may be opened in reasonable safety without interfering with the movement of other traffic; or (2) leave a door on the side of a vehicle next to moving traffic open for longer than is necessary to load or unload a passenger." 3. Chapter 551- Operation of Bicycles, Mopeds and Play Vehicles includes the following: a. "A person operating a bicycle has the rights and duties applicable to a driver operating a vehicle under this subtitle, unless: (1) a provision of this chapter alters a right or duty; or (2) a right or duty applicable to a driver operating a vehicle cannot by its nature apply to a person operating a bicycle." b. "Operation on a Roadway (a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), a person operating a bicycle on a roadway who is moving slower than the other traffic on the roadway shall ride as near as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway, unless: (1) the person is passing another vehicle moving in the same direction; (2) the person is preparing to turn left at an intersection or onto a private road or driveway; (3) a condition on or of the roadway, including a fixed or moving object, parked or moving vehicle, pedestrian, animal, or surface hazard prevents the person from safely riding next to the right curb or edge of the roadway; or (4) the person is operating a bicycle in an outside lane that is: (A) less than 14 feet in width and does not have a designated bicycle lane adjacent to that lane; or (B) too narrow for a 29 bicycle and a motor vehicle to safely travel side by side. (b) A person operating a bicycle on a one-way, roadway, with two or more marked traffic lanes may, ride as near as practicable to the left curb or edge of the roadway. (c) Persons operating bicycles on a roadway may ride two abreast. Persons riding two abreast on a laned roadway shall ride in a single lane. Persons riding two abreast may not impede the normal and reasonable flow of traffic on the roadway. Persons may not ride more than two abreast unless they are riding on a part of a roadway set aside for the exclusive operation of bicycles." These excerpts are provided simply to illustrate, based on a very limited review of the Transportation Code, that there is a plethora of regulations and citations in law that affect the operations of a bicycle on public roadways. It is also interesting to note that the Transportation Code directly addresses the "Rules of the Road" as they apply to pedestrians. For example, the CAN, is often faced with pedestrians wanting to use striped bicycle lanes to walk in if they exist in locations that do not have accompanying sidewalks. Aside from the obvious potential for conflicts with bicyclists, bicyclists are required to travel in the same direction as the motorized vehicles and pedestrians are required to travel in the opposite direction of motorized vehicles when they walk in the street: "552.006 USE OF SIDEWALK. (a) A pedestrian may not walk along and on a roadway if an adjacent sidewalk is provided and is accessible to the pedestrian. (b) If a sidewalk is not provided, a pedestrian walking along and on a highway, shall if possible walk on: (1) the left side of the roadway; or (2) the shoulder of the highway facing oncoming traffic. (c) The operator of a vehicle emerging from or entering an alley, building, or private road or driveway shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian approaching on a sidewalk extending across the alley, building entrance or exit, road, or driveway." The State legislature recently considered legislation that provides a stated deference to "vulnerable users" which includes bicyclists and pedestrians. This legislation was vetoed by Governor Perry over concerns that existing provisions in State law adequately protected the "vulnerable users" and that the proposed act would potentially conflict with these existing provisions. Regardless, several cities in Texas have adopted ordinances which are patterned after this legislation, and the City's Legal Department is currently studying the potential adoption of such an ordinance. 30 V. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS In addition to the information for bicycle accommodation contained in the existing planning documents and the legal considerations discussed, there are also a number of design considerations relative to bicycle accommodation that need to be factored into the equation. From the 1999 AASHTO manual: 1. "Research continues to provide additional criteria for the design of appropriate bicycle facilities. The selection of a bicycle facility may depend on many factors, including vehicular and bicycle traffic characteristics, adjacent land use and expected growth patterns." 2. "Safe, convenient and well-designed facilities are essential to encourage bicycle use." 3. "The provisions for bicycle travel are consistent with, and similar to, normal highway engineering practices. Signs, signals and pavement markings for bicycle facilities which are presented in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) should be used in conjunction with this guide. For construction of bicycle facilities, state and local construction specifications should be used." "Bicycle Lanes Versus Wide Curb Lanes: Operational and Safety Findings and Countermeasure Recommendations", U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, October 1999, is a report on the operational and safety findings plus countermeasure recommendations from a stud- of bicycle lanes (BLs) versus wide curb lanes (WCLs). The study was based mainly on videotapes of 4,600 bicyclists in Santa Barbara, CA, Gainesville, FL, and Austin, TX. It found that significant differences in operational behavior and conflicts existed between BLs and WCLs, varying based on the type of behavior studied. 1. "Wrong-way riding and sidewalk riding were much more prevalent at WCL sites compared with BL sites." 2. More motorists passing bicycles on the left apparently encroached into the left lane in WCL situations than in BL situations. 3. More bicyclists appeared to obey stop signs in BL sites; however, when a stop sign was not obeyed, there were a higher proportion of bicyclists that exhibited "somewhat unsafe" and "definitely unsafe" movements at the BL sites. 4. Most of the observed conflicts were minor and did not vary based on the type of facility. However, bicyclists in WCLs had more bike/pedestrian conflicts and bicyclists in BLs had more bike/bike conflicts. 31 The overall conclusion of the study was that both BL and WCL facilities "can and should be used to improve riding conditions for bicyclists. The identified differences in operations and conflicts appeared to be related to the specific destination patterns of bicyclists riding through the intersection areas studied and not to the characteristics of the bicycle facilities." Bicycle lanes are normally 4 to 6 feet in width (refer back to the AASHTO citations). The BL widths listed would not include the stripe or the gutter pan. Wide curb lanes, which are a recognized bicycle accommodation or facility, are wider than a standard lane in order to provide extra space for sharing by motor vehicles and bicycles. WCLs are normally a minimum of 14-feet wide. According to the FHWA report, bicyclists often report feeling safer operating in a BL versus a WCL, but a BL can make it more difficult for a bicyclist to make turning movements, especially at an intersection. The design of new facilities and improvements to existing ones should ideally be an ongoing process that should be consistent with a comprehensive plan that takes into account the different types of bicycle users, existing conditions and the overall community's goals. Improvements can be as simple as replacing inappropriate grates, changing inlet designs, using monolithic curb and gutter, etc. or can be more extensive such as providing a shared use sidewalk or pathway or changing the cross section of a street. The implementation of bicycle lanes on existing streets depends in large part on the design of the roadway. Shared use paths are on independent routes so their designs depend on other factors such as ROW, funding, topography and anticipated uses. In addition, "roadway projects that extend near or intersect existing or planned shared use paths should include careful analysis and design measures to ensure the continued access and safety of path users." (AASHTO, 1999) The following listing of considerations from AASHTO is for conventional bicycle accommodation: 1. Shared roadways - Addressing or incorporating the following items is essential to improving the safe operation of bicycles on existing roadways: Bicycle-safe grates and inlets, bridge expansion .joints, railroad crossings, smooth pavements (free of potholes for example), adequate sight distances, and signal timing and detector systems that respond to bicycles. Also, "costly shoulder improvements and wide curb lanes can be considered." "Width is the most critical variable affecting the ability of a roadway, to accommodate bicycle traffic. In order for bicycles and motor vehicles to share the use of a roadway without compromising the level of service and safety for either, the facilitv should provide sufficient paved width to accommodate both modes. This width can be achieved by providing wide outside lanes or paved shoulders." 2. Paved shoulders - This represents a good mode of accommodation for rural areas. If limited funding is an issue, paved shoulders can be added on grades alone, rather than on the entire 32 roadway extents, to allow slow-moving bicycles the room to move over. Rumble strips or raised pavement markers (RPMs) used to warn motorists that they are driving on the shoulder are not recommended where the shoulder is intended to accommodate bicyclists unless minimum clearances can be achieved (1' from edge of traveled way to rumble strip or RPM and 4' clear to edge of pavement or 5' to adjacent guardrail, curb or other obstruction). 3. Increased lane width - WCLs are usually preferred where shoulders are not present. A minimum of 14' of usable lane is recommended for shared use in a WCL. Where more maneuvering room is needed by the bicyclist, wider lanes are preferred. "In situations where more than 15 feet of pavement width exists, consideration should be given to striping bike lanes or shoulders." "Restriping to provide wide curb lanes may also be considered on some existing multi-lane facilities by making the remaining travel lanes and left-turn lanes narrower. This should only be considered after careful review of traffic characteristics along the corridor and supported by a documented engineering analysis based on applicable design criteria." 4. On-street parking - Increases the potential for conflicts between motor vehicles and bicyclists. On-street parking subjects bicyclists to hazards such as opening doors, vehicles exiting parking spaces, extended mirrors, and obscured views of intersecting traffic. 5. Pavement surface quality - The smoothness of the riding surface can affect the comfort, safety and speed of the bicyclist - surface irregularities can cause danger to the rider. Surfaces need to be smooth and pavements should be uniform in width, cracks and joints should be sealed, holes should be filled, and humps need to be smoothed out. "As pavements age it may be necessary to fill joints or cracks, adjust utility covers or even overlay the pavement in some cases to make it suitable for bicycling." 6. Drainage inlet grates and utilitv covers - These items are potential sources of conflict. Bicycle- safe grates (openings perpendicular to the direction of travel) should be used and covers should be located so as to minimize conflicts (flush or out of the travel pathway). As a short-term alternative, cross straps spaced at 4-inch centers can be welded across grate inlets. 7. Signed shared roadways - Identifying preferred routes is desirable if the routes provide continuity to other bicycle facilities (bike lanes or shared pathways); if there is a common route for users through a high demand corridor; if low motor vehicle traffic or the presence of a bicycle accommodation (such as a paved shoulder) is present; or if the route extends along local neighborhood streets and collectors and leads to an internal destination like a park, school or commercial districts. It is recommended that bike route signs include destination information. 33 8. Designating sidewalks as signed bikeways - Using sidewalks for bicycles is not typically satisfactory. Using extremely wide sidewalks will not necessarily improve the safety of having bicycles on sidewalks; in fact, it can encourage higher speed bicycle use and increase conflicts with pedestrians, fixed objects, and motor vehicles at intersections. Sidewalk bikeways should be considered only where they provide continuity along high speed or heavily traveled roadways that do not have enough space to accommodate bicycles and where they are not interrupted by driveways and intersections for long stretches. They are also useful on long, narrow bridges. Flush curb cuts at all intersections and bikeway yield or stop signs at uncontrolled intersections should be implemented. Signing neighborhood sidewalks for bikeways is inappropriate (usually only used for riding by young children). 9. Signing of shared roadways - Include destination plates on signage. It is sometimes necessary to sign a route to direct bicyclists to a logical destination without a specific end use (like around an obstruction or closed roadway). 10. Bike lanes - Bicycle lanes can be marked on roadways if and when it is desirable to indicate the available road space intended for use by bicyclists and motorists and to help provide for more predictable movements by each of these vehicle types. Bicycle lanes should be one-way facilities and should carry bicycle traffic in the same direction as adjacent motor vehicle traffic. Two-way bike lanes on one side of a road are not recommended inasmuch as they can result in bicycles riding against the flow of motor vehicle traffic. "Wrong-way riding is a in *or cause of bicycle crashes and violates the rules of the road..." For one-way streets, bicycle lanes should generally be placed on the right side of the street. 11. Bike lane widths - For roads with no curb and gutter, the minimum bicycle lane width should be 4 feet (minimum riding surface width for the bicycle). If parking is allowed on the street in question, the bicycle lane should be between the parking stalls and the travel lane and be a minimum of 5 feet wide. According to AASHTO, where there is parking but no parking stripe or stalls are present, the shared area should be a minimum of 11 feet without a curb face and 12 feet with an adjacent curb face. If parking volumes are significant or turnover is high, an extra 1 to 2 feet is desirable. Bicycle lanes should never be placed between the parking stall or lane and the curb since this arrangement causes conflicts with opening doors, produces intersection and driveway visibility issues, and makes it difficult for bicvclists to make left turns. The minimum recommended width of a bicycle lane is 5' from the face of a curb or guardrail to the bike lane stripe (doesn't include the stripe width) if the longitudinal joint between the gutter pan and ridable surface is smooth. If the joint is not smooth (like they all eventually become), a minimum 34 of 4-feet of ridable surface should be provided, which equates to a 6" stripe plus a 4' ridable lane plus 18" gutter pan (this is how a 6' bike lane width is derived). Bicyclists tend to ride from 32" to 40" from the curb face, which would put them close to the center of a 6' bicycle lane. Raised pavement markings and raised barriers should not be used to mark bicycle lanes because they can cause steering difficulties for bicyclists (safety issue). 12. Bike lanes at intersections - "Bike lane striping should not be installed across any pedestrian crosswalks, and, in most cases, should not continue through any street intersections. If there are no painted crosswalks, the bike lane striping should stop at the near side cross street property line extended and then resume at the far side property line extended. The only exception to this caveat might be the extension of dotted guidelines through particularly complex intersections or multi-lane roundabouts." "At signalized or stop-controlled intersections with right-turning motor vehicles, the solid striping to the approach should be replaced with a broken line with 2-foot dots and 6-foot spaces." (AASHTO, 1999) 13. Shared pathways - The minimum recommended width for a shared pathway is 10 feet. Intersections between these paths and roadways are the most critical design components, so careful design with regard to these junctures is paramount to user safety. Each intersection is unique and requires sound engineering Judgment in deriving the appropriate solution (guidelines for design are listed in the AASHTO manual). 14. Railroad crossings - Railroad crossings should be as close to a right-angle as possible by using a shared path or widened shoulder if necessary. With angles that deviate from perpendicular, the potential for the bicyclist to lose control at the crossing is increased. Inventory of Existing Conditions The first step in developing a plan for bicycle facilities should involve making observations and surveys and gathering data on existing conditions or infrastructure for bicycle travel. CAN, staff has begun this very process through the actions of the consolidated committee of City personnel assembled to look at options for connectivitv and through the solicitation of a proposal from a consulting firm, as discussed under the Gasoline Prices and Proposal Solicitation portions of part IL BACKGROUND of this report. It is staff's intent to carry out this process in general accordance with AASHTO statements in this regard: "Problems, deficiencies, safety concerns and bicyclists' needs should be identified. The existing bicycling environment should be observed. Bicycle facilities as well as roads not typically used by bicyclists should be examined for their suitability for bicycling. Motor vehicle traffic volume, the percentage and volume of bus and truck traffic, and the speed of traffic should be considered, since 35 they have a significant impact on bicyclists. In addition, obstructions and impediments to bicycle travel should be noted such as incompatible grates, debris, shoulder rumble strips, narrow lanes, driveways, rough pavements, curbside auto parking, bridge expansion .joints, metal grate bridge decks, railroad tracks, poor sight distance and traffic signals that are not responsive to bicycles. Potential corridors for off-road shared use paths should be explored, such as former and active railroads' rights-of-way, stream and river corridors, canal towpaths and utility corridors. Bicvcle parking facilities should be examined for adequacy in both number and theft prevention. Barriers such as rivers, railroads and freeways should also be identified and examined for their effects on bicycle traffic." Bicycle User Groups From the Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (AASHTO, 1999): "...the skills, confidence and preferences of bicyclists vary dramatically. Some riders are confident riding anywhere they are legally allowed to operate and can negotiate busy and high speed roads that have few, if any, special accommodations for bicyclists. Most adult riders are less confident and prefer to use roadways with a more comfortable amount of operating space, perhaps with designated space for bicyclists, or shared use paths that are away from motor vehicle traffic. Children may be confident riders and have excellent bike handling skills, but have vet to develop the traffic sense and experience of an everyday adult rider. All categories of rider require smooth riding surfaces with bicycle-compatible highway appurtenances, such as bicycle-safe drainage inlet grates. As discussed under the Denton Development Code portion of part III. EXISTING PLANNING DOCUMENTS of this report, the 1994 report by the Federal Highway Administration used the following general categories for bicycle user types (A, B and C) to assist highway designers in determining the impact of different facility types and roadway conditions on bicyclists: "Advanced or experienced riders are generally using their bicycles as they would a motor vehicle. They are riding for convenience and speed and want direct access to destinations with a minimum of detour or delay. They are typically comfortable riding with motor vehicle traffic; however, they need sufficient operating space on the traveled way or shoulder to eliminate the need for either themselves or a passing motor vehicle to shift position. Basic or less confident adult riders may also be using their bicycles for transportation purposes, e.g., to get to the store or to visit friends, but prefer to avoid roads with fast and busy motor vehicle traffic unless there is ample roadway width to allow easy overtaking by faster motor vehicles. Thus, basic 36 riders are comfortable riding on neighborhood streets and shared use paths and prefer designated facilities such as bike lanes or wide shoulder lanes on busier streets. Children, riding on their own or with their parents, may not travel as fast as their adult counterparts but still require access to key destinations in their communitv, such as schools, convenience stores and recreational facilities. Residential streets with low motor vehicle speeds, linked with shared use paths and busier streets with well-defined pavement markings between bicycles and motor vehicles, can accommodate children without encouraging them to ride in the travel lane of major arterials." Refer back to the DDC discussion under part III for a listing of the street accommodations for bicycles and users under the DDC. It is worth keeping in mind that "no one type of bicycle facility or highway design suits every bicyclist and no designated bicycle facility can overcome a lack of bicycle operator skill. Within any given transportation corridor, bicyclists may be provided with more than one option to meet the travel and access needs of all potential users." (AASHTO, 1999) Types of Bicycle Accommodations Part III of this report talks about various existing codes, planning documents and standard details accommodations for bicycles in Denton. AASHTO lists the following general types of bicycle facilities: 1. Shared roadway, (no lane designation) - "Most bicycle travel in the United States now occurs on streets and highways without bikeway designations. This probably will be true in the future as well. In some instances, a community's existing street system may be fully adequate for efficient bicycle travel, and signing and striping for bicycle use may be unnecessary. In other cases, some streets and highways may be unsuitable for bicycle travel at present, and it would be inappropriate to encourage bicycle travel by designating the routes as bikeways. Finally, some routes may not be considered high bicycle demand corridors, and it would be inappropriate to designate them as bikeways regardless of roadway conditions (e.g., minor residential streets). Some rural highways are used by touring bicyclists for intercity and recreational travel. In most cases, such routes should only be designated as bikeways where there is a need for enhanced continuity with other bicycle routes. However, the development and maintenance of 4-foot paved shoulders with a 4-inch edge stripe can significantly improve the safety and convenience of bicyclists and motorists along such routes." 2. Signed Shared Roadway - Designated with bike route signs in order to: a. "Provide continuity to other bicycle facilities (usually Bike Lanes); or b. Designate preferred routes through high-demand corridors." 37 The purpose of the signage is to show bicyclists where there is an advantage to using a particular route compared to another route. The presence of signs also lets motorists know of the presence of the bicyclists. 3. Bike Lane - Designated with appropriate pavement markings and signage along streets in corridors where there is significant bicycle demand and where there are distinct needs that can be served by them in order to improve conditions on the streets for the riders. Bike lanes are intended to indicate the portions of the ROW set aside for both bicycles and motor vehicles. Construction of bike lanes can better accommodate bicyclists "where insufficient space exists for comfortable bicycling on existing streets. This may be accomplished by reducing the width of vehicular lanes or prohibiting parking in order to delineate bike lanes." Obviously there are tradeoffs with restricting (slowing) the flow of traffic, particularly when there is a mix of commercial vehicles, and with the loss of available parking. "Regular maintenance of bicycle lanes should be a top priority, since bicyclists are unable to use a lane with potholes, debris or broken glass." The increased presence of these types of facilities with the attendant increased maintenance obligations translates to increased costs, potential increased liabilities (especially if it can be alleged that this maintenance was not dutifully performed) and increased issues around establishments involving the sale and use of alcohol. 4. Shared Use Path - Serves corridors not served by existing streets, so this type of facility is not the same as the 8' wide path next to the collector classification roadways. An example of this type of facility would be the "Rails-to-Trails" pathway. All of this information is consistent with the existing provisions of the DDC, the Transportation Design Criteria Manual and the City's standard details. Countermeasures The 1999 FHWA study listed a number of remediation techniques or countermeasures that could be employed to facilitate bicycle accommodations under existing conditions: 1. To address the problem of motor vehicles that are parked illegally in bicycle facilities (for this to be the case, a municipalitv would first have to have an ordinance in place that precludes parking in a BL) or that pull into a BL to drop someone off, "No Parking in Bike Lane" signs can be used liberally. Compliance then becomes an enforcement issue for the Police Department. If on-street parking is allowed, then double stripe a 5' minimum bike lane with the inside stripe at least 3' from the parked vehicles (effectively an I F parking stall) to provide a "buffer" space for door 38 swings and maneuvering. If there is not sufficient space for this extra width, a 14' "shared" space can be provided, but the potential for conflicts from opening doors will still exist. 2. Cross walks can be painted at driveways and intersections, along with "Watch for Bicyclist" signs. Sight lines must be kept clear for the motorists. Bicyclists should be cautioned to drive slowly when using sidewalks, especially when approaching intersections. Another typical problem occurs when a motorist pulls across a bike lane at an intersection or driveway ("cheating" up into the intersection). One way to resolve this issue is to install a stop bar and "Yield to Bicyclists" sign in the intersecting street ahead of the bike lane on the through street. 3. BLs can have dashed striping at busy driveways to increase visibility for bicyclists and motorists, which may also help eliminate conflicts and crashes associated with turning motorists that overtake a bicyclist. 4. Narrower lanes can be considered at intersections to calm traffic and to preserve space for bicyclists that may be potentially lost to additional lanes (turning lanes). 39 VI. OTHER MUNICIPALITIES/ENTITIES Staff canvassed a number of other municipalities and entities in Texas and other States in an attempt to assemble a broad sampling of bicycle accommodation policies, methodologies, designs and recommendations. This information is considered to be important as the Citv moves forward with formulating and implementing its own plan to augment bicycle and pedestrian transportation alternatives. Organizations/documents accessed included: 1. Citv of Fort Worth, Texas - "Bike Fort Worth - A Comprehensive Bicycle-Transportation Plan - 2009." "The purpose of Bike Fort Worth is to create a framework, using engineering, education, encouragement, enforcement and evaluation, to increase bicycle transportation and improve safety in the City of Fort Worth." Study limits included the city limits and Fort Worth's ETJ, with identified ETJ projects considered for future planning purposes as Fort Worth grows. Fort Worth does employ WCLs (15' wide) on their higher-volume streets. Types of facilities identified for use parallel those discussed in this paper. Some key points discussed in the plan include discouraging the use of sidewalks (typically 4' in width in Fort Worth) for bicycling, the use of shared roadways or signed routes (no BL striping) on high-volume or narrow downtown streets, the use of BLs consistent with the recommendations listed in this paper, the use of shared bus/bike lanes, the use of paved shoulders and the implementation of countermeasures on existing facilities. 2. City of Plano, Texas "Comprehensive Plan - Bicycle Transportation Policy Statement 1.0" - This policy statement listed several objectives, including providing "for safe and accessible recreational and destination-oriented bicycle use" and developing and maintaining "a system of ina*or and secondary bicycle routes and recreational trails for destination and recreational use that lead to cultural and employment areas, mass transit facilities and residential neighborhoods." Plano's Bicycle Transportation Plan map network is divided into four categories: NCTCOG Veloweb, Major Routes (under proposal and consisting of on- and off-street routes focused on destination trips), Secondary Routes (located on local and collector streets), and Recreational Trails (off-street paths). 3. San Angelo Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) "San Angelo Area Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan" - The plan's intent was to "provide guidance for the development and implementation of an interconnected network of designated on-street bicycle facilities as well as off-roadway trails and a system of sidewalks." Existing facilities and routes were cataloged and types of facilities were identified for use that parallel those discussed in this paper. Future projects were prioritized along with projected costs per type of facility. 40 4. Citv of Arlington, Texas - Arlington is currently seeking proposals for an updated "Comprehensive Hike and Bike System Master Plan." Arlington's website provides a link to their current bicycle plan, provides a survey for citizen feedback, lists information for bicycle safety and rules, and lists links to websites for a large number of metroplex area bicycling clubs. 5. City of Austin, Texas - "2009 Bicycle Plan Update" - Focused on updating the existing Bike Plan (completed in 1996 and 1998) and on the completion or extension of the existing bicycle network, this study also listed a number of immediate actions recommended for implementation: Staffing - Austin had 3 full-time equivalents or positions (FTEs) committed to the Bicvcle Program as of the date the study was prepared, with a recommendation that this staffing be increased by at least t~vo FTEs and additional part time positions; Data collection - Recommended the regular collection of surveys, ridership counts, etc. with the development of a methodology for future data collection in order to establish a baseline for benchmarking and progress monitoring; Update the Transportation Criteria Manual and Land Development Code - Recommended updating these documents to reflect the goals and objectives of the Bicycle Plan; and Implementation of Education and Bike Plan promotional efforts. 6. Citv of Houston, Texas - Houston's website provides information on their bikeways and a great deal of information on bicycle parking, stating that "bicycle parking encourages bicycle travel." The Citv of Houston has a Bike Parking Program and provided bicycle racks to schools, management districts and other public institutions, and private organizations that were willing to pick up and install the bike racks on their property for employee and public use. 7. City of Frisco, Texas "2006 Comprehensive Plan" - Frisco's "Hike and Bicycle Trail Master Plan" is a component of their Comprehensive Plan. The Master Plan is intended to "facilitate the movement of pedestrians and cyclists in a safe and efficient manner within the City transportation network of thoroughfares, collector streets, and open spaces." The main component of their system is the 12' wide or wider Open Space Trails which are to be built in major creek corridors separated from vehicular traffic as much as possible. The secondary routes identified in the plan are on-street routes planned on collector and arterial streets as a "share the roadway" system. The third level of "trails" are "off-street" trails and walks parallel to specific major and minor arterial streets and are typically 8' wide. 8. Corpus Christi MPO "Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan" - 2005 - The plan's intent was to "provide the region with a plan for creating an environment where people could choose to bicycle or walk to their destinations and provide recreational opportunities for walking and bicycling to encourage a 41 healthy and active lifestyle." Existing facilities and routes were cataloged and types of facilities were identified for use that parallel those discussed in this paper. Future projects were prioritized along with projected costs per type of facility. 9. CAN, of Dallas, Texas "Bike Plan Map" showing 365 miles of marked bicycle routes in Dallas, 200 miles of recommended routes in Dallas County, hike and bike trails, mountain bike trails, safety information and the location of bicycle shops. Bicycle signs and flyers on applicable laws and safety, were also accessed. 10. Citv of Portland, OR - The Citv of Portland has an extensive amount of information on its bicycling website (http://Nvw .i)ortlandtransi)ortition.or~4/bicycles/defitilt.htin). Portland is considered to be a "platinum level" bicycle-friendly community by the League of American Bicyclists with a bicycling rideshare reportedly at 6%. Portland's bicycling policy is to "make the bicycle an integral part of daily life in Portland, particularly for trips of less than five mile by implementing a bikeway network, providing end-of-trip facilities, improving bicycle/transit integration, encouraging bicycle use, and making bicycling safer." As a comparative factor, it is worth noting that the 2000 Portland population density was approximately 4,228 people per square mile, while Denton's was 1,310 people per square mile. Highly urbanized areas (slow- growth) like Portland versus areas like Denton (dispersed with a spread out or poorly defined central business district) have different growth patterns and priorities for infrastructure improvements. 11. Other miscellaneous studies and reports accessed - Vancouver, Canada "Vancouver's Bicycle Network: Retrofitting a Constrained Road Network to Accommodate Cyclists"; U.S. DOT/FHWA "Design Guidance: Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel: A Recommended Approach"; and University of California, Davis "A Bicycle Friendly Community" by David Takemoto-Weerts. Related information included - the WalkingInfo.org website information on school zone improvements, the Safe Routes to Schools Partnership website on school siting with regard to walking and bicycling, and "The Oregon School Siting Handbook." 42 VII. POTENTIAL COSTS AND FUNDING OPTIONS Change or improvements to infrastructure does not come without cost. The components or types of costs can include planning studies, engineering design, construction costs and maintenance costs. Other Municipalities Several of the studies listed in part VI looked at the cost impacts of adding facilities for bicycle as well as pedestrian accommodation: 1. Citv of Fort Worth, Texas - "Bike Fort Worth - A Comprehensive Bicycle-Transportation Plan - 2009" - It is staff's understanding that the Fort Worth plan is not funded; however, the report did include a table of planning level cost estimates. The costs for bike lane projects was split between "80% signing and striping bike lanes on new facilities; 10% signing and striping bike lane with road diet (removing old pavement markings and re-striping) of existing street; and 10% signing and striping bike lane with widening (acquiring right of way to move curbs out) of existing street." Signage and pavement markings were projected to cost $6,000/mile, bicycle lanes were projected to cost $20,000 per mile, bicycle lanes with "road diet" were projected to cost $40,000/mile, and bicycle lanes with road widening were projected to cost $250,000/mile. Paths were projected to cost $500,000 to $800,000 per mile. Overall costs for an estimated total of 574.9 miles of on-street projects were listed at $17,417,000, and costs for 187.1 miles of off- street (paths) projects were listed at $142,480,000. Costs per mile for striping/construction were not specified on the basis of roadway type or material. Maintenance dollars were not included in these projected costs. The study recommended that Fort Worth "begin by committing staff time and an initial financial commitment of $100,000 annually towards these programs, increasing the amount to $300,000 annually by 2015." Assuming that Fort Worth commits to this level of financial investment per year for their program, implementation of the full amount, particularly with inflation and fluctuations in construction costs, will take many years to realize. 2. San Angelo Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) "San Angelo Area Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan" - Roadway restriping (WCL or BL) was projected to cost $20,000 to $30,000 per mile, paving of a 6' wide shoulder along both sides of a roadway was projected to cost $200,000 to $250,000 per mile, a 10' wide separated trail (off-street) was projected to cost $90,000 to $150,000 per mile, a 5' sidewalk was projected to cost $50,000 to $80,000 per mile, and signing of bicycle facilities (5 signs per mile each way) was projected to cost $3,000 to $5,000 per mile. Costs per mile for striping/construction were not specified on the basis of roadway type or material. 43 3. Corpus Christi MPO "Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan" - 2005 - Roadway restriping was projected to cost $50,000/mile, shoulder construction was projected to cost $200,000/mile, trail costs were projected to cost $200,000/mile and signing was projected to cost $5,000/mile. Costs per mile for striping/construction were not specified on the basis of roadway type or material. Local Projected Costs The City of Denton utilizes annual contracts for striping, asphalt paving and concrete paving, among other things. For comparison purposes, staff utilized these annual contracts to project the costs to modiA, Oak and Hickory Streets between Carroll Boulevard and Bonnie Brae Road to incorporate a striped bicycle lane (approximately 7,200' of street of varying widths), understanding that Oak and Hickory serve as a secondary arterial per the Mobility Plan and, as such, should ideally utilize a WCL to be consistent with Code and AASHTO. The cost estimates included removal of curb and gutter and storm inlet relocations where the street section was too narrow to accommodate two lanes and the recommended bicycle lane width, some sidewalk replacement, restriping of the roads and addition of a bicycle lane stripe at a total projected cost of approximately $1.4 million dollars for Oak Street (about $1.0 million total per mile) and $0.8 million dollars for Hickory Street (about $600,000 total per mile). These costs are considered to be somewhat conservative and were based on very little field due diligence, but they are more site specific than the general planning level costs included in the studies published for other entities. However, it is very unlikely that new projects in Denton would incur these high costs per mile that are anticipated with a retrofit project. Funding Options Funding sources for bicycle and pedestrian projects, programs and activities can come through a variety of avenues, of which the Federal-aid program is only one. Each source may have its own criteria for eligibility of a project or program types, physical locations in which those projects or programs may be implemented, or other constraints on how the funds can be used. The 2005 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), is the most recent funding authorization legislation for Federal-aid programs. SAFETEA-LU requires each state department of transportation to set aside federal funds from eligible categories for the construction of bicycle and pedestrian transportation facilities. 1. Transportation Enhancement Program -TxDOT issued the 2009 Statewide Transportation Enhancement Program (STEP) Call for Projects on October 9, 2009. As stipulated in the "Texas Transportation Enhancement Program Guide 2009," projects that fall within the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA) must be 44 submitted to NCTCOG for approval prior to the submission to TxDOT. A letter of support for eligible projects is provided by NCTCOG to local governments to include in their completed applications to their local TxDOT District Office. On January 29, 2010, the Regional Transportation Council (RTC) received the following project submittals from cities in the region that have been provided to local TxDOT districts: Dallas District Bicycle/Pedestrian Projects: 20 projects totaling $65,536,651 Fort Worth District BicyclelPedestrian Projects: 19 projects totaling $29,742,774 Only a small number of these types of projects are expected to be funded. Denton did not have any projects that met the criteria for submittal as explained at the NCTCOG meetings held in advancement of submittal. This call for projects is typically an annual program that is always very competitive. Typically, a project must be part of an overall master plan (which Denton needs to develop) and the benefits to the community must be well documented (public outreach and comments). Much of the funds for the STEP program for the remainder of the current SAFTEA- LU authorization have already been allocated by the TRC to projects for the region. Staff will continue to research this resource as a possible avenue for funding. 2. Safe Routes to School Program - Safe Routes to School programs create practical projects to make school routes safer for children to walk and bicycle. Typical projects include sidewalks, crosswalks and bicycle facilities. Community leaders, parents and schools can use education programs to help children travel safely to and from school. The 2009 SRTS Program Call applications were due November 30, 2009. The program call for projects is anticipated to be on an annual basis, pending funding authorizations. The 2009 program did not include funding for preparation of plans, as it had in the past, but instead focused on the actual implementation of facilities. In order to submit for funding, a routing master plan to each school that is approved by the affected school district must be in place. Although Denton does not currently have such a plan, staff is taking steps to work with DISD and a consulting firm to prepare one in anticipation of the next program call for projects. Staff will continue to pursue this resource as a possible avenue for funding. 3. Congestion Mitigation and Air Qualitv (CMAQ) Program - In 2004, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) designated nine counties in North Central Texas as nonattainment areas for ozone in accordance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). These standards are designed to protect human and environmental health. Ground-level ozone is monitored and targeted for reduction because of its potentially harmful effects. Four main 45 sources of ozone-causing emissions include on-road mobile sources like cars and trucks, non-road mobile sources like construction equipment, point sources like electric generating utilities and industrial boilers, and area sources like solvent use and agriculture. The development of an air quality plan, known as the State Implementation Plan (SIP), is required for all nonattainment areas in order to demonstrate how ozone will be reduced to levels compliant with the NAAQS. The SIP for the Dallas-Fort Worth nonattainment area includes programs to get older cars off the road, technologies to clean up vehicles already on the road, and education programs so that citizens can do their part in improving air quality in North Texas. In the past, projects to encourage walking and bicycling in north Texas have been funded under the CMAQ program. Recent funding constraints and requirements to prove air quality benefits have made these funds more restrictive and vet still very, competitive. Much of the funds for the CMAQ program for the remainder of the current SAFTEA-LU have already been allocated by the TRC to projects for the region. Staff will continue to research this resource as a possible avenue for funding. 4. The Hazard Elimination (HES) Program is part of the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and has the basic objective of reducing the number and severity of crashes. Program objectives are accomplished through "highway safety projects." HES projects may be for locations both on and off the state highway system. HES projects may accomplish any of the following: Correct or improve high-hazard locations, eliminate or otherwise address roadside obstacles, improve highway signings and pavement markings and install traffic control or warning devices at locations having a high number of crashes. These projects may range from site specific safety improvements and upgrading of existing conditions to new roadway construction (such as grade separations). Highway safety projects should ideally be small in scope and low in cost, with the ability to bid within three years. TxDOT will advise local communities of an upcoming call for projects. Staff will continue to research this resource as a possible avenue for funding. Other possible funding resources include: 1. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) administers the National Recreational Trails Fund in Texas under the approval of the FHWA. This federally program receives its funding from a portion of federal gas taxes paid on fuel used in non-highway recreational vehicles. The grants can be up to 80% of project cost with a maximum of $200,000 for non-motorized trail grants and currently there is not a maximum amount for motorized trail grants. Funds can be spent on both motorized and non-motorized recreational trail projects, such as to construct new recreational 46 trails, to improve existing trails, to develop trailheads or trailside facilities, and to acquire trail corridors. The application deadline for this program is May 1 st each year. 2. TPWD Regional Grants - This grant program was created to assist local governments with the acquisition and development of multi-jurisdictional public recreation areas in the metropolitan areas of the State. It provides for cities, counties, water districts, and other local government entities to acquire and develop park land. The program provides 50% matching fund (50% local contribution) reimbursement grants to eligible local governments for both active recreation and conservation opportunities. Master plans must be submitted at least 60 days prior to the application deadline. Grants are awarded yearly by TPWD when funds are available. This program is currently inactive, but may be reinstated in 2010. Staff will continue to research this resource as a possible avenue for funding. Staff will continue to research this resource as a possible avenue for funding. 3. On September 17, 2009, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced a new program: Communities Putting Prevention to Work. Thirty, to forty, communities will receive a total of $373 million in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (stimulus) dollars through this competitive grant program to support interventions that reduce obesity (through improved physical activity and nutrition) and/or reduce tobacco use. Communities can apply for either focus area or both. This funding opportunity is aimed at mobilizing community resources toward broad-based policy, systems, organizational and environmental changes. Applications place an emphasis on the communitv demonstrating effective coalitions and notes that special consideration should be given to the inclusion of populations disproportionately affected by chronic diseases. However, construction and research are not eligible activities. Staff will continue to research this resource as a possible avenue for funding. On September 29, 2009 the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced the release of $120 million in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds for prevention and wellness programs for U.S. states and territories, building on the recent announcement of the $373 million funding opportunitv for communities and tribes around the country. The lead applicant for this type of funding needs to be either a local or state health department. The deadline for 2009 Awards was December 1, 2009. It is uncertain whether additional funds will be made available in the future, but in the event that another program call is issued, the City should work with the health department to demonstrate how the City and local advocates can be a resource to them. The key to the success of Communities Putting Prevention to Work program will be the ability to implement community-wide policies, systems, and environmental changes that include the full engagement of the leadership of city government, boards of health, schools, businesses, 47 community and faith-based organizations, communitv developers, transportation and land use planners, parks and recreation officials, health care purchasers, health plans, health care providers, academic institutions, foundations, other Recovery Act-funded community activities, and manv other community sectors working together to promote health and prevent chronic diseases. 48 VIII. ONGOING ACCOMMODATIONS Bicycle and pedestrian accommodations have been a part of Citv of Denton planning and engineering efforts for many years. As discussed under the Denton Development Code portion of part III. EXISTING PLANNING DOCUMENTS of this report, WCLs are provided in all newly constructed (by development or CIP) arterial streets, shared pathways are provided on all newly constructed (by development or CIP) collector streets, and bicycles routinely utilize local or neighborhood streets. Bicycle accommodations, sidewalks and trails are implemented through a variety of avenues including the development process, CDBG programs, CIP projects and various other grants and funding opportunities. Over the past ten years approximately 18.5 miles of trails have been added through Denton parks, 8.3 miles of roadside trails and 2.5 miles of subdivision open space trails have been added, approximately 0.9 miles of striped bicycle lanes have been added on Hercules and Hickory, and approximately 1134 miles of roads with a wide outside lane or WCL have been constructed. Staff is also proceeding with plans to implement the following projects: 1. Staff is working with a property, owner north of Lee Elementary, to donate the ROW for the extension of Paisley from just east of Mack Drive to its current terminus west of Oak Valley. The ROW will be cleared and an all weather walking/bicycling pathway will be installed for connectivity and improved access for children attending Lee Elementary. 2. Staff is moving forward to restripe Eagle Drive from North Texas Boulevard to just west of Carroll Boulevard. The restripe will convert the roadway from a 4-lane undivided to a 3-lane (one lane in each direction with a continuous left) with striped bicycle lanes. 3. Staff is moving forward to restripe and possibly reconstruct a portion of Welch Street from Eagle Drive to Hickory Street. The restripe will convert the roadway from a 4-lane undivided to a S- lane (one lane in each direction with a continuous left) with striped bicycle lanes. 4. Staff is working through the DTIP process to look into the provision of bus and bicycle accommodation on Sycamore Street from Welch Street east to essentially the rails-to-trails corridor. Assuming that this process is successful, a bicycle corridor will be established between UNT and the new DCTA station with the listed modifications to Eagle and Welch. 5. Staff is looking at ways to achieve bicycle connectivity from TWU to the DCTA station similar to that underway, from UNT. 49 6. Possible conversion of Malone Street from a 4-lane section to a 3-lane with bicycle lanes (depends on connectivity possibilities to other trails/routes). 7. Consolidated staff committee looking into the use of existing easements, sidewalks, pathways, streets, drainage corridors, etc. for pedestrian and bicycle connectivity and accommodation (refer to part II of this paper). 8. Negotiation of a consultant contract to develop a baseline bicycle master plan (refer to part II of this paper). 9. Exploring the possibility of the extension of a dedicated bicycle pathway between Chestnut Street and Union Circle across the UNT campus with funding through the UNT system. This connectivity would provide bicycle access across UNT from Avenue C to Welch Street. Some of these efforts will require the dedication of funding and the cooperation of multiple entities to realize their success. 50 IX. OPPORTUNITIES There are a variety of "moving pieces" that need to be considered as the City moves forward with bicycle, and pedestrian, accommodation. These considerations can and should translate into opportunities for the CAN, to improve infrastructure to effect this accommodation: 1. Proceed with the hiring of the consultant to evaluate and catalog the City's existing assets and to develop an update to the City's Bicycle and Pedestrian Component of the Mobilitv Plan and to develop a Safe Routes to Schools map with assistance/cooperation from DISD. This action will help form the basis for possible Code and standards revisions and funding opportunities. 2. Staff has been approached by a professor with UNT about the possibilitv of graduate student participation in bicycle facilities planning, surveys, etc. This asset would be able to complement the efforts of the consulting firm mentioned herein above. Staff is also looking into the possible involvement of engineering staff or students from the Universitv of Texas at Arlington (UTA). 3. The 1999 AASHTO manual discussed throughout this paper is currently under revision with participation from the traffic/bicycle subconsultant that has been involved in the Downtown Implementation Plan. These changes may affect the approaches taken to accommodation. 4. Staff has been in communication with TxDOT regarding the possibility of bicycle accommodation on their on-svstem facilities in Denton. TxDOT has asked that the Citv continue with their bicycle plan update and to communicate back to the State any desired routes on their svstem. The Citv should be aware that this type of accommodation may well require the City to participate in the funding of facility widening and/or ROW acquisition. 5. The Planning Department is looking at the possibility of an update to the Denton Plan in the next year or two. This comprehensive document is the parent document to the Mobilitv Plan and all of its various components. It would be problematic to "blaze a trail" on the development of a comprehensive bicycle and pedestrian plan outside of this process, especially since issues such as development density, infill regulations, and parking regulations along with other Code amendments would need to be considered as part of a bicycle plan development. If Planning were currently underway with this update, the transportation component, including bicycles and pedestrians, would be under discussion and consideration for update as well. 6. The Finance Department is projecting that 2013 will be the earliest year that the next bond election will be held. Any significant projects brought forward as a result of the bicycle 51 accommodation planning could fit in well with this schedule for consideration by a Blue Ribbon Bond Committee. 7. Staff is exploring the possible creation of a focus group or committee for bicycle accommodation. Staff has discussed the possible participation in such a group with internal personnel from the committee working on the consolidated connectivity plan for alternative transportation (discussed in part II of this paper) and with TxDOT and DISD personnel. All responses to date have been favorable. In addition, members of the various bicycle groups, representatives from TWU and UNT and possibly other internal staff (Fire, Planning, etc.) or commission/committee members can and should be considered for participation. This group would not only be in a position to contribute to the consultant preparation of the updated bicycle master plan, but could also be a resource for the ongoing consolidated connectivitv plan for alternative transportation as well as updates to the Code and Denton Plan. 8. Staff is exploring avenues to increase public sensitivity and education towards bicycling and bicycle accommodation, possibly through aired spots on DTV that would discuss safety, issues such as conflicts at driveways and intersections and proper bicycle movements (no wrong-way riding, no two-way riding, etc.). 52 X. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The process of fostering bicycle and pedestrian connectivity and accommodation is not a simple matter. Manv factors affect the ability to safely incorporate effective plans for such accommodation into the Citv of Denton's planning and engineering documents and projects. However, the shift in focus or consideration from motorized vehicles to alternative forms of transportation is not only worthwhile from the perspectives of public health benefit and resource conservation, but also from the perspective that the eventual presence of facilities for such accommodation will be economically desirable to citizens in the future as fuel prices climb. This paper has attempted to outline the background and origins of the current state of bicycle, and to an extent pedestrian, connectivitv and accommodations in Denton, to present some legal, design and economic considerations for various forms of accommodation, to provide information with regard to ongoing projects that are beneficial to bicycle connectivity; and to present some information on opportunities available to the City as it moves forward with this process. The first step recommended is to catalog the City's existing assets and to make a more determined effort at surveying the populace for feedback on a base level bicycle master plan or map. Staff will move forward with contract negotiations with the consultant that has submitted a proposal for this effort and will provide this consultant with all of the information garnered from other municipalities and entities and all of the citizen feedback and forms collected to date. In addition, it is recommended that a focus/stakeholder group be established to consider and contribute to matters involving bicycle accommodation and that alternatives for public education be explored. Staff will continue to seek out information on the updates to the 1999 AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities inasmuch as this document could affect the planning for bicycle integration into the City's projects and criteria. Staff will be meeting with UNT research personnel to discuss their possible involvement in the process and possible contributions from graduate students. These steps will provide the basis for moving forward with the formulation of possible capital projects in anticipation of the next bond election, will provide the groundwork and backup data needed to help with the eventual update to the Denton Plan, and will help the City provide information to TxDOT for possible accommodations in conjunction with on-system projects. It is not recommended that the City, undertake a complete revision to the City's Code, criteria and standards involving bicycle and pedestrian accommodations at this time in advance of the Denton Plan update. Staff will continue to look into the possibility of incorporating countermeasures such as those discussed in this paper to increase the level of safety and recognition of the presence of bicycles on the City's existing 53 road system and will continue to look for opportunities to incorporate dedicated bicycle lanes on existing streets where appropriate. Obviously, funding levels and liability concerns will need to be addressed as various measures are employed or recommendations are brought forth for consideration. Staff will work with its consultant to do further research on the criteria and possibilities for funding opportunities. In summary, although bicycle accommodation does present many challenges, there are equally as many opportunities available to the community. Staff looks forward to working with the Citv Council, the various committees and commissions, other entities and the public in pursuing these opportunities through to fruition. 54 APPENDIX A CITY OF DENTON PRESENTATION ON BICYCLE FACILITES MARCH 22, 2010 PUBLIC MEETING THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK r r*j ® m ® r e 00 , J 4 S r'll- - rvoo O 4-J 4-J C: V E O E V E E E E o o ~ sL sL ~ T T . _ ~l ~ iJ iJ V c~ c~ c~ u 4-j . . 4-j 4-j s s o u 0 0 0 N ^ p V p o O ° ~ O N LA u LA ct a) z N 4-J O v O L O E .61 O O .61 U _ a~ a) > > a~ U O a~ LA V Q Q 0 v Q E a~ %W C: .61 4--J O ~ u LA ~ N N N O N ~ co O .u V) U -0 O ~O N p m O - O O Q~ U c~ ~N 4-a 4-J p E ~ a~ ca u 0 -a o m i •Q O c~ > Q z DC O p Q Q O O vi U O Q Q ZD > Q m~ s .0 O O vi v dJ a~ fZ a 5--► s 4-+ 4-J 4-~ 4-J . O 4-1 ~ v ~ ~ a~-+ O'er c~ i ~ ~ - Q~ ~n O~'VS•V Q V N V ~a-/-~~ O O v V v i' j VI 4-J 4-J > 4-J Ln :3 (v o (v u T$ O v V O Q 4-,J C LA >0 c~ N N N C: -Z2 o 4- V O V O v _ V v-4-" 0 (V -0-0'5 Os 4J > E O V c~ > p1 s V z 4-J -0 (vC_c cz~(V~~•~0 4..J 4-J u 0 4-J 4-J (V (V S2 _lZ 4-1 C~ O N iJ a-J i sC: V i (V:- i V 'L a-j of L CL ~ t r `tt TJ Y S 1 s y Wn 05 J _N 4-' V QJ 0.a 05 = 4-J N N N N ~ I O w c~ O i .4-j O s N ~ N J O o 4-' O a~ u V) u I a~ 4--J In 05 M N 1 C ~ N V) 4-- N as-•+ . V N O u N O~ N 4--+ 0 ~n O 05 N M u 4-1 V) _ 05 - V) M v) V) 0 05 0 -F5 4--J 4-J ' t p s N N~a •N M L A 'N N N v) v) 4-J 4--J 05 4-J 0 (3) In 4- 1 u •p •u •u •u ~ o 4-J ~ 0 L p Q m O ro ~ N Li. S M1v. 1 yt^1 ~ r~ ,mow. ; ~11 ho, r ~ f. M vi 4-J _Z ca co 3 N N N ;r cn m m V 4 r t FR> ~ rxr f ' „ _ 4'h * dot 1 41 C: N a--+ O =3 a--+ O s ~ c~ O Q 05 • O 05 as--' a--+ N co M O co Q Q 'i V i N Q N C) L6.- O N 0 i}- • co Q i co co s . _ O co ~ ~ O ' ~ V) O C u O ~ V a) _0 O 4-j c- E q c: 00 > a O O O Q 4-J 0) v) V N V) N a-1 V 05 05 0) i r a-J 0 (3) U (3) V 05 % m O Q - V L N i Q i N~~ a_' N , . . (/1 N Q_-o W -0 V (/1 ccc N O O N Q N a-J N ~ N 4-J 0 O c~ u L ~ (3) 4 O c~ U Q s E ro ro c~ .0 c~ > r 4-J = Co 4-J `a i 4-J C - 0 M 4-0 s o ~ 4=' a a O Q ~ a~ `i 75 o s v~ 4-0 as ro 4-J 0' O _ ) -0 CL u (1) N m u~ o ~ E CL LL , U m U CZ M (1) V) O F O o > Q _ N V in O O = 'u O Q Z i, ! I I 77 „ Lr. I a-J O 4J Ln i rvooo a--r a _i -i; I, Li _I •V i ~L~ 05 LL Y~ 4-j r 4-J H p 4-J o - 4-+ V r L/) v I., 4-J U W ILL 4J O 00 U - cr~ I~ i i 1i ffi r~- i l I~ a--+ O a--+ 4-J 0 cr) (a) I r Q 4-J O O 05 N O Q 05 Q O 4-J - O O N 0 ~C) O Z 05 c~ a) N V) ro O E ro 4 C: CD 0 ro V) rIQ u q: -Ile ~ E c- (V O co O " In u, 0 E a- a- 7; V) C: O u E a) - O V a x w 0 N co J~ cn (v C N L a-J s a-J v~ 4-+ 4-J u J V OC N a-J iO S p i v u c~ m c/1 4+ 4-J s 0 O O Z N Q a~ 4-+ _ O a V) s V L4 II II ~ 0 C: r llq- O r O O 1..` C7 C7 C7 A I _ . a; s 4-1 M N O (n a) r6 ~ E .~-j r co V) 0 N O p 0) o u V) 0 Un 4--J ~s > o~ Ln u s ~ a--+ N s V) v' u Q zi p c~ E uzs z O O ~ O U ~n ~J In co N ~ O O 4-J O ro Noun U,~ 0 0(a) o O O = 4-J 0 4-J > N V^ U Q N - 4-J 4-► > E O c~ 0 o~r U w oC ~ w V,.:.J 4aWq, 1 w m, a r A"a u n~n ~91 Fd'b l' q ~a 1 0. l IF GSM + ~i ~t r 1111 : i O ~ ~o^l R,~ F~ ~y.. ~t ~ F t Mf ~ 6V9 o U r" r, i O a..+ . N. Li r ry i rw`~ Ii O s 4-J i a-J O oC oC L 0 °J s Vn p M o ro u ro N c~ E N_ u u U 4-J : _0 M -0 =3 c~ 4-J N o o u M L-' E u m O E N O a O c~ L~.- 4-- co 4- V) -F5 } 0 + N vi - (V 4-J N N 0) (v =3 cy) V) p O CCO S i- Q M G N Z Ln =3 0 E s N o 0 a--► Q Q rz o O s o 4-+ s V co N cn cn U > s 0 0 N L O V ~ O W a-J L ° LL N a--► 1 a--► V N ~ ti I _ f " 1 O r V V - ° 3 - a-J O O y ZA, F- F T O N In i N - O 4J - 0 4-J u L O V E 4-j 4-j °a a•~j V E as-j O L cn O a--► ~ In a-j O (3) 3 En •u O 0 a--+ O 4-j 0 O cn i C: 0 V) OL-0 O Vn E ro O ~ •N O U 0L o u cv - s _ rz E s ro O rz 0) >Z a~ rz O aJ O O • - lfl > V D U- w r T - - r 1 i - s, r~ 1 u T _ } - rt CL y r_y rTA tiZ.. u., ci it tz, Y C: t t u r 1 1 i t LJA y~ .j; t .L, it • _ I~ r, _ r~ .i 1 1 J s [ f"r_ r l T 1 I~ - r - - - r - u Q tn 0 O m (3) (3) O -0 2 4-J ~ :D ) 4-J ~ O a) Fz c~ O s 06 a- J ~ O E Z V O s c~ :D 4 u p u O O O s s c~ u U-0 U 4-J 4-J C0 . , Jr..a mod: s. • e~^~.y. ~ • - v g ~}'dw X 44 ~ a . r- ~ - k• .a, a ~ . E ° s (1) 4-J > 4- (1) ° Ul a-J s °J u 4-J ° •i ° N s Ul Ul 3 U 4-J • X a-J c~ (V a) 4-J 4-J E E ° c E Q Q ~ u 0 0 0 A t N O rd • U n 'in Ln U- V) rd a--+ 4-J '4 L V) •x O w v) U ~ s O O U cn cn 0 00 4-J ~ O O - 4-0 qrt (1) o ~ u 4-J C;) 4-J LL Ul s 4-J Q 0) Q) . O 4-1 ~ •u V) O rd 0 4-J 4-5 O J U s X cz - 4J U U AL AL ' In In ~ u u •rd r LL N N _N V N u O p O u m rd 4-J - O° U U o `d Q ° Q - V) 0 0 rz rd (V Q) - Q) ° C > u E 0 0ro O 0 r) N rd O Z ZD i N O ) 'Q c•~ C) s > rd N ~ N ~rz V ~ cn j •Ln Ln Q cn u rd -C rd X O' i > o 4 =ov,~ Qa v (-JO L a) " ° C) C) O 4 Q O Q LL M. [V [V u V N r) N O 05 O o u ro O co s _ h5rd G N L O /ZL V0 ~ 0 N L V) X ~ Q 'Ln E E V E U c~ Ln ' O s s O O 4-J U Q 0 Q L U i O V) 0 C: 4-J o Ln rd V) 4-J O rd = V) 0- LL LL Q U m 0 a. X rd N 4-J V) In ' rd rd LL O V) 4- V =3 O 4- 0 V) V) 4-J 4-J N L 0 ~ rd rd o E~ V rd 0 0 Q u u 0 V -0 rd x rd (1) p w m m '5 O O O 4- 0 All U ^ U w w - ~ o y I4t rs f v-' ~ 1r~~' ~ a ' art ~t ~ f • - i wA4 t, r ~41 I 5{~W,G$ 'huW luj f x r L ~ ~ ~ I~`I .liap 4r a-J M V O •u E m E ca O V ~ V 0 Q cn O Ul) U i M ) ~ U O 00 Ul) O O O O O Ul) c~ Ul) Ul) Ul) 4-J - m a~ L r) > N N 'U a-J r- . M 00 V M 00 LL r-- Q A A A A Ak L O L O U M Ul) 3: ~ cn O E w U ~a N _ veuIed w J.JW] i= L _ r-[]'- u Li r w ~ i F.I IJ 7r~ II4 = C C a O w C _a Cr r.' I~IHA.x}•~ a EF.INKE R. ` Ll , rv f w LL ~ - r7l' i i l 9 J vs l l I- abd ONV73A;7D CINV RA370 IVAI8,A a~Na3a - - I L W L ~ ~ III~b3~ ~ ~ r 1,11 313 ~ ; 1 U L NVMON O - O H 3 I M I NE_F F- a--+ z j 0 7' 071W~i~3~~b 3 :1 AV d3MO7 O it 3 AV L y~I; Rc7 CN ~r G Z11 W ' ; r_ n w - R a. - ry T - a ~r 4 l , ji ~ i a~(z 4 u - , i U , I a>~ r 1 { 11 Oll 41 ~ - ~fi s, i.. , t 1 IF R 1 lr l 71 t1 ~ l0.. ~ e1: d, ~J ra t 4 , r r lap 4 ' 1 E ~~<;u ]J Ail i LU~{{ r~ i ~K v 4» 41 .1 3 r _M 4-J Q M C: Ul) p vi V a--+ 4-J Cie c~ M p CL LL +J 0 Ul) i 4-J U LL Z w 071 1.- x + + + + + + N i -h Lj - J 1. -71 1 - 7 a-J s i71 -r ~ cq + + + + O U i cv to c', '7 ili 171 M 1:1-1 OD V V) Ly ~ • ~ E X Q 00 ~ O O N ~ O I a--+ C0 O O Q N L c~ ~ N ^ i a L n / V C0 V) Ln - V 4-J x rd V) 03 ( U s, d} 1T1 T - ai+ LL - ~ L ' L L ill 9.} V _ L Y = p DL cc: IT, O ~ - 0 (D O U - : E Ir. 17. Cl CL V) a-J N N L a-J (n L ~ O U Ln N 00 E o O . ~ V ~ oC 4-J O 0 O I cv s U- O cn Q M V > N Ln N rn Q 4-J j Q a C) I a °o a~ O U LL p U 0 0 0 W U 0 0 0 APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF FEEDBACK CITY OF DENTON PRESENTATION ON BICYCLE FACILITES MARCH 22, 2010 PUBLIC MEETING THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK St 71 T D E a "I" Utility and CIP Engin eering 901-A Texas Street Denton, Texas 76209 (940) 349-8910 fax (940) 349-8951 MEMORANDUM DATE: April 2, 2010 TO: Frank Payne, PE, CAN, Engineer FROM: Clay Riggs, EIT RE: Summary of the Bicycle Public Meeting held on March 22, 2010 Notification The target audience of the bicycle public meeting was the Denton community cyclists. Notifications were sent via email to known bicycling groups and flyers were given to local bicycle shops to post and distribute to customers. They are listed in the table below. Bicycle Grou s Bicycle Shops Bike Denton Denton Bicycle Center Corinth Cycling Club Bullseye Bike Shop UNT Cycling Club The Bicycle Path In addition to notifying the bicycle groups, a press release was issued through the City of Denton Public Information Officer. The press release was sent to: • every TV station in the Metroplex (including Univision and Telemundo) • Denton Record Chronicle Newspaper • WBAP News 820 AM • KRLD 1080 AM • KNTU 88.1 FM • Dallas Morning News • Star-Telegram • Denton Business & Community News • NT Daily • North Texas Television • DTV newsbreak • Alliance Regional Newspapers • The Argyle Sun • Dallas Business Journal • Krum Star Newspaper Transportation Projects Update Page 2 • The Lake Cities Sun • Pegasus News • Pilot Point Post-Signal • Robson Ranch Pioneer Press • Sanger Courier • Star Community Newspapers The Denton Record Chronicle published an announcement in the local news section of the Wednesday, March 10, 2010 issue of their paper. Attendance At the entrance way into the meeting a sign in sheet was available and attendees were asked to sign in and leave their name, address, and email. A total of 58 people signed the attendance sheet. Council Member Jim Engelbrecht and Council Member Dalton Gregory were also in attendance. Goal The goal of the meeting was to receive input from the public related to bicycle facilities throughout the city. Conduction of Meeting Upon arrival attendees were asked to sign in, fill out a bicycle questionnaire, and fill out a comment/request to speak card. The meeting was broken into three parts, a power point presentation by staff, a group work session, and an audience comment time. The first part of the meeting included a power point presentation by city staff that outlined current plans and codes from the city and some other planning organizations. The presentation also included discussion of the city developing a Denton plan for alternate modes of transportation, bicycle manuals that could be used for design and guidance, other community bicycle plans, current mileage of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, use of easements and drainage ways as bicycle corridors, and some potential future projects. A print out of the power point slides is included in the appendix. For the second part of the meeting the attendees were separated into groups and given a city street map. The groups were charged with identifying three sets of origins and destinations important to the group and then highlight routes that they would use to get from the origins to the destinations. The final part of the meeting was a time for the attendees to come to the front, use the microphone, and voice their comments (see the comments section for more information). Maps that were on display during the meeting • City of Denton Mobility Plan Roadway Component • City of Denton Mobility Plan Pedestrian & Bicycle Linkage Component • Trail System Map from the Parks, Recreation, & Trail System Master Plan • City of Denton FEMA Flood Zones Map • NCTCOG Veloweb Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities from the Mobility 2030 Plan Transportation Projects Update Page 3 Overall Tone of the Meeting Overall the attendees were glad to see city staff seeking their input. All of the attendees seemed very favorable to the city developing a Denton plan to address bicycle facilities and holding public meetings throughout the development process. They were glad to see city staff researching other communities, regional bicycle plans. Two negatives were voiced during the comment session of the meeting and through conversations with city staff. The most stated negative was that the attendees do not like accommodation by wide outside lanes and would feel safer riding a bicycle on a striped bicycle lane. The other negative that was voiced was a sense that not enough emphasis has been placed on safe routes to schools and that some of the Denton schools require children to either ride alongside or cross major streets to get to schools. Both negatives were voiced in a constructive, non confrontational way. Requests made from the attendees The only specific request that was made during the meeting was for the maps, plans, power point, and questionnaire results be made available on the internet. The attendees were informed that the maps and plans were already available on the internet and that the power point and questionnaire results would be posted. Comments from the attendees Attendees were given a comment/request to speak card and questionnaire. The comment/request to speak card gave attendees a chance to write out comments and/or address the audience toward the end of the meeting. Many of the attendees also wrote comments on the questionnaire. Listed below are the comments given from the attendees in written form from the commit card/request to speak card and the questionnaire, as well as statements made while attendees addressed the audience. Written Comments: Marie Nuchols: Please, please, please, please improve lanes for cyclists! Mary Birden: I would like to be involved in a committee concerned with planning alternate modes of transportation for please, work, and business travel in the City of Denton. Todd Gray: I am the guy pushing "culture change' which is economical and can be done as prep for progress. I am a teacher and would not mind meeting or discussing ideas this summer... guy with the tie. Remington Pahlmeyer: 40-60 percent of kids that are driven to school line in the 1-2 mile no- bussing zone. Please design for everyone, not just experienced cyclists. If you haven't ridden pre-existing facilities like rail trail, bike lanes, Sherman `share the road' wide lane, please do! You can't plan 'til you can empathize you do it for cars. Amber Briggle: I request to go towards the start since I am with a 2 year old child. Please e- mail the powerpoint presentation to me. Transportation Projects Update Page 4 Todd Gray: Need to promote safety and protection - how? Seems like collector roads are not being considered Windriver? Brandon Morton: Supports, but needs improvement still. Transportation is part of a larger conversation on shifting toward more sustainable, urban design and planning and community connectivity. NCTCOG's vision North Texas 2050. Economic, environmental and socio- cultural sustainability. That means, bike trails need to go toward businesses. Why are their different categories of bicycle users? I would argue that we don't provide separate lanes for different drivers (16 year olds, experts, NASCAR). So why does the strategy for bicycle transportation include tiered trails? Steve Coburn: I support stripped bike lanes and bike paths without cars. Verbal Comments: Amber Briggle - In favor of bike routes. Cycles to park, library, pre-school we are everywhere. Shared roads are confusing to vehicle drivers, not in favor of shared roads. Next Alex Croy - Has been here for 10 years. Mixed lanes sound good in concept, but don't work. Bike lakes are much better, add paint to wide roads and add bike signs they go a long way. Howard Draper - Has been in Denton for 12 years. Thinks the meetings are a good idea. We need to start planning now to make sure we get to where we want to go. Other cities are adding paint as they re-do the roadways, maybe we could start there. Nick Magruder - Lived on Normal Street for about 4 years. Wide outside lane confusing, study done by UT, vehicles not sure where bike lanes start and where they end. Sidewalk riding is not a good idea. Says Denton County has a grade F by the American Lung Association as far as pollution is concerned. He was hit on Bonnie Brae from behind, helmet saved him that is why he isn't in favor of share the road. Ken Royal - Lived here 45 years cycled since 1968. Segments don't connect - trails end. Ryan HS students walk on side of the road, they do not have sidewalks or path to walk on. Very dangerous. We need safe routes to school. Devon Taylor - Grew up in Denton. Paint makes the difference. The paint makes vehicles slow down because they are aware that a bike might be there. Wind River did have bike lanes then they were gone, he was told by traffic that it never had a bike lane. Need to move forward with plans we haven't done much. When he rides recreationally he wants to be able to go somewhere, movie theatre, ect. Safe routes to school are important. Follow Austin, almost no cost when you just add paint. Jeanette Laredo - Not in favor of shared roads. She has ridden to Golden Triangle and Kroger, not a safe way to go. The Hickory Street idea that we have would it like on other streets. Transportation Projects Update Page 5 Brandon Morton - UNT student, intern for office of sustainability at UNT. His role is to find grants and funding opportunities. The more comprehensive plan is and how it fits Denton the more likely you will get funding. Lots of energy. Katie Trice - Commutes everywhere. Safe connector routes. Separate bike lakes. We need safer routes to schools. We need separate stripped cycle lanes, not share the roads. It would make a green image for City of Denton. Kevin Marshall - He is glad that he lives in Denton where we are trying to make it better place to be. Keeps Denton economy strong, cycle here and spend your money here. Putting the lanes in place would make the number of bikers go up, because they would feel safe. He would love for students to be able to commute to school by bike. Lived in Denton over 5 years, has a business here. Heidi Bamberg - UNT student. Wants everyone to keep the passion and energy to make this happen. Not in favor of share the road. Joe Gregory - Rides a lot, rode 5100 miles last year. He offered to take anyone on a ride some Sunday afternoon. Chris Lewis - He is a public health student. He is writing a paper on preventing obesity. He would be happy to help explore funding opportunities. Emerson Vorel - Great ideas. There are funding sources; the one that we mainly use is CIP projects. We need the public to vote on those projects. Make sure the projects you want are on those agendas. Written Answers to Questionnaire, Question 9: That specific neighborhoods or locations in the City do you think need bicycling improvements, and what kind of improvements? • City! ! Downtown to UNT, TWU, Commerce, Etc! ! • All ideally, but especially areas linking district 3 to University, Carroll, downtown, 288/the Mall, District 1 to these places as well. • Carroll Blvd (where I live). Hickory, Oak, Elm Locust, Bell, Bonnie Brae, stripped bike lane on road with bike insignia on road, signage saying `share the road'. • Teasley 2181/Ft. Worth Dr, all major roads need bike lanes or safe shoulders • Bike paths, bike lanes, green spaces for bike on streets • Downtown area, schools, and to shopping center • Airport Road, to many big trucks and no shoulders • Main N/S and EAV corridors, routes to schools and parks, routes to transportation hubs 0 1 think every major traffic road needs bike lanes, also 288, 380 and 77 most definitely do Transportation Projects Update Page 6 • Hwy 288/Brinker/Spencer fastest growing area little to no thought about pedestrian/bicycle. Hwy 380 & Rayzor Ranch area. • Near the high schools, and universities, 288 • More bike lanes • Stop lights crossing University, -4.8 seconds for bikes at University and Malone. • Central, downtown, adjacent neighborhoods. Hickory approach to Carroll Lane needs to continue up to Carroll. • More bike lanes near campus, busy streets, better riding community and events • Oak/Hickory historic area and roads surrounding/near UNT campus need bike lanes and better lit busy roads • Downtown, campus areas, Carroll Blvd, University • University Dr.- this important road does not even have a continuous sidewalk. Neighborhoods in close proximity to UNT and TWU need bicycle routes. I believe that bicycle designated lanes and the routine maintenance of those lanes is critical. I would strongly discourage shared use roads/wide outside lanes. I cannot over emphasize the need for on-road bicycle lanes. They are both safer and more effective then shared use lanes. • Oak Street needs a bike lane • Everywhere, but downtown and older neighborhoods most of all. • Near the two Universities and the square needs more bike lanes connecting these areas. Neighborhoods need bike routes to schools. Connect UNT/TWU and neighborhoods to major shopping areas with bike lanes. Not a fan of wider roads as a bike route. It is important to make clearly were bikes are allowed to ride because many motorists do not know bikes are allowed on roads. Also, safe routes to schools are important. • Carroll, 288, retail areas • Do not like idea with wide outside lanes, would much prefer to have stropped bike lanes even better would be bike /walk trails with no cars. • Hinkle/lanes in and out of downtown, repaving and cleaning of debris • University, Carroll, Bell, McKinney, Locust, Elm, Oak, Hickory, Bonnie Brae, Dallas Dr, Teasley • Area around UNT/bike lanes • University, Carroll, McKinney, Dallas Dr, Ft Worth Dr, Eagle, 288 • North Denton • All parts • Future rails to major destinations • Arterials for school kids, Elm, Oak, Hickory, Locust, Work and Airport Rd • Carroll, University, Bonnie Braw, Hickory, Oak, Eagle, Ave C, Streets on square, Elm, Locust, 288, Lillian Miller/35 Intersection 0 University Transportation Projects Update Page 7 • University crosswalks! ! Sidewalks, bike path Carroll bike lanes • Connecting UNT, TWU, Downtown • Southridge connect 2 sides of I-35 to downtown, to UNT and TWU • I live in Southridge and my children have to cross Teasley to get to Houston Elementary. I always see children in the middle of Teasley at the crosswalk, Longridge, coming from McMath. It's dangerous and frightening to see. • East McKinney (East of Mayhill), add shoulders to all of Mayhill • Most areas in Denton need bike lanes or signs that indicate that Denton is a bike friendly city! • I am an experienced cyclist and have no problem sharing roadways with other traffic, so I ride as often now as I would with better facilities. However, better trail systems and more visible signage/bike lanes would make cycling more comfortable for me and more accessible to less experienced riders. • South Denton - Teasley, west to Krum, North to Ray Roberts • Mingo! This is a very dangerous street for pedestrians and bikers but it is always busy with them. They are usually on the grass. • Implement bike lanes to 11.8 miles of existing roadway fit for bike lanes now! • I'm aware that 288 is a TxDot road but the South East side between 288 and McKinney while housing many jobs for lower income people who have to walk or ride a bike. • Schools, parks, churches, shopping and eating areas • Carroll, Ft Worth Dr, University, connecting trails everywhere • Dedicated lanes especially in downtown core, but all neighborhoods need it 0 Carroll/Ft Worth Dr, Eagle, Dallas Drive, University especially at intersections 'i i ~ 1 I I 5.! iA, ~ i E v ~ rS i 1 r I 1 14 ~ A p A ` wfi ( ~ ~ ~ ~~11` ~ ~ AA u ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ uwu uia ~ A uui ~III~II i~ ~ at I i uui~~ ii' u~ri p a , w i I ,t i u«ii p~V~ 1 i 101 11 i I~ W 77, ~V+ uui 3 i i. t tt 1f i i o± wfi i i i i i uui 7 of V ~ f f ' ~ i ~t f f 7 a '~l f t fiiiiiCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCiiiN - , , r i f I I 1 k VIII I tf _ I I IIII ~ IIoi is 111 f 1 4 = 1 1 r - - 1 c 1,, 1.. f j F -r f F f f I i 111111 I \ ~ 1111111 1 1 ~ I 1 \ IIII 1 77 Ill\\1~ \il.~ ~ I \ S! I 1 ~ fl \ 1 1 I J IIi _ I i W Pum'ti u III IIII ~ f~i i'i1 III I~ 1 . f I I i I ~1 _ l i,i} I'Y I I''i I. f.~Ti i ul 77, I - 4 Lw; ~ I~ Il I r Li 17 'r- ~ r 1L N LJ I I _ IJ wri I II f` 1~ 1~ I I 1 1 I I r 1 11 i I Ir'~ t f .:I I I _ I~I o_ ~ I . I` j I w- 's ~ . y h~ r I ~`I . .L. . o VIII IIIIri I ~ ~i i i o, i I i j I i I i i i I _ . y m h Y ' f r i L+ x Y sr 1 ~z ae nl. r I k A~ ~ F ~ I 111111 1 ~ i I ~ ~ l 111P uu iil~mu i ~IIlnm~ i ti 'k t ,i y rti lU r~ rY - 7'S _ L ;7 7-1 rr i i 5 5 uu q '~4 ! ! ~I ~i ~ l 4 i• I l Al i yN ,ef7_ s,,ti ~ dv.w lw* 1-.. ~i 4' M1~ n ~ (ice 4• 4~.F 1 ^~.._J ..`4 ,.k~ Illlii i p f~ I II f ~f I i wfi \ V\\ \ V 11 ti515~ ~ IIIIIII11) + VI J:I j}l}t I SI ~ ~V 1 1 I III I ~ I V III VI V I \ \ 1 I I Illlii S r V v n .I v ',i 77!!! `el 1 uui 7011M i ~`h i,~~~ ~Illllllmluu{ 1 i i I a; t C i i i i i uui I ~ 1 ti ~l Min, I U + 1 1+ s t ~ i i I I I I I I I I I 1 i i i iP uui .ill AAA' W 7,1 1110 i ti l 1 S i Il l lii S.2 ~t aliii~ uuii II i it i i I i wri N"M 111 ~1 1 ; 1 01 sWV s. i SI 1\ ~ 11 ~ I~ 1 ~ 1 ~ ~ I~III~IIIIIIII~~ Y 01 i 1 ~ t Sr j 1 II II III , III y i t I t~+ w0i i i ii i 11 ( 1 1~1 1 ~ja\ ai ''v 1v i I I \1l S 1 1 l \ 1 i 1 I 1 I I 1 \ 111111 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: April 13, 2010 DEPARTMENT: Utility Administration ACM: Howard Martin, 3349-8'321' SUBJECT: Receive a report, hold a discussion and give staff direction regarding the development and implementation of Governmental Category Development Review Process. BACKGROUND: At the joint meeting of the Denton City Council and the Denton Independent School District (ISD) Board of Trustee on March 2, 2009, Tom Rutledge of Teague Nall and Perkins (TN&P) and the DISD staff presented a development review concept that would result in a more concurrent infrastructure and building review process (see Exhibit I). This review concept was a process that the City of Fort Worth had developed to utilize with the ISD facilities being constructed in the City of Fort Worth's jurisdiction. On March 10, 2009, the City of Denton received a resolution passed by the DISD Board of Trustees encouraging the City of Denton to evaluate a similar process to assist with the timely completion of the District's projects (See Exhibit II). The development of an Ad Hoc Committee was suggested as a mechanism for the review of the existing process and possibly the development of a revised review process. Members of the City of Denton and the DISD staff were ultimately directed to evaluate the current development review process to see if a more streamlined review process could be developed for governmental entities such as the District and Denton County. (See Exhibit III) The City of Denton contracted with Tom Rutledge (TN&P) to assist in the facilitation of the process of the Ad Hoc Committee. The Ad Hoc Committee included representation from DISD, COD, Denton County, Contractor, Architects and Engineers. (See Exhibit IV). The committee began the process by evaluating components of the existing development review process, reviewing primary purposes of each step, and evaluated the City of Fort Worth process and ultimately identified a number of changes that could be utilized to facilitate a more concurrent review of governmental projects thus potentially shorting the timeline necessary to complete a project. The committee also discussed a number of ways in which to improve the overall process coordination between the City of Denton (COD), the Denton Independent School District (DISD) and Denton County (DC) primarily in the forecasting, planning, site selection and project scheduling and construction of anticipated DISD and County facilities. The following outline documents the committee's identification of issues that were discussed and addressed in the recommendation section of this report.. 1. COD Governmental Category Development Review Process It is recognized that the current review process was developed primarily for non- governmental entities and as such, establishes specific criteria that attempts to ensure that public safety, adequate public facilities, regulatory compliance and appropriate environmental stewardship are accomplished. The primary purpose for developing a governmental category was to accomplish the same basic objectives as the non- governmental process but recognize that governmental entities have a fundamentally different project purpose, commitment to code and regulatory compliance and profit motivation than the non-governmental developers. Recognizing these differences, we have attempted to evaluate the develop review process with the idea of revising and reducing the approval timelines through concurrent reviews and approvals while maintaining the fundamental objectives of the review process (See Exhibit V). As part of the development review process, the City of Fort Worth utilizes what is called a "Community Facilities Agreement' 'that effectively takes the place of the 3 way development agreement currently utilized in the existing process. This document serves to identify the public infrastructure and associated costs, sets the initial development fees based on the public infrastructure estimates and includes as part of the CFA the bonding and insurance requirements once project bids have been awarded. The proposed governmental category development review process includes this approach. A copy of the Fort Worth's CFA is included in Exhibit VI. 2. COD/DC/DISD Project Point of Contact and Development Review Interface Most projects require substantial coordination with many different disciplines and various organizations for the successful completion of a complex construction project. Reviewing project design and development compliance, inspecting the construction activities, integrating the project with public infrastructure, mitigating the project impact on the environment and facilitating the timely completion of new facilities are the key functions of the development review process. The committee agreed that project communication is the key to successful project completion. Identification of specific "points of contact" for each entity was discussed as a key component to efficient project communication and problem resolution. Additional discussion focused on the inclusion of the "point of contact" from each entity in all of the entities' project meetings and also in the review of major development projects such as Master Planned Community (MPC) projects that come through the Denton review process. 3. DISD/DC Facility Development Projections Currently, the City of Denton develops five year capital plans for general fund and utility projects. These capital plans are reviewed on an annual basis and bonds sold to fund projects within the five year plan. The general fund capital plans are generally a result of a five year capital plan committee recommendations with the addition of various projects required for efficient city function. The utilities capital plans are developed based on community infrastructure need and priorities and also include projects necessary to address utility infrastructure requirements of projects from other entities such as TxDOT and the County. However, these capital plans have not been traditionally shared and/or coordinated with either the District and/or the County except on an as needed basis. There has been no attempt to share and/or coordinate capital planning efforts and associated project construction. The District typically develops a growth management plan that addresses student demographic and associated facility needs but again it is an independent effort that rarely gets coordinated with either the City or County. 4. DISD/DC Bond Program Coordination and Project Structuring The primary issue discussed on this point was the lack of time from funding a project to opening or completing a project. DISD staff has a very short window to get projects accomplished. With multiple projects in any one year, the completion of these projects in the timeframe required has been unmanageable to address all of the infrastructure components of a project. Many of the infrastructure components are either not addressed or left until after the project is complete (open) to finish. The committee discussed how additional time could be achieved if the entities were willing to consider changing the structure of the bond committee process and/or project financing. Improvements in project planning and scheduling combined with restructuring of the capital process and project financing could provide additional time for facility and infrastructure review and construction particularly with "green field" projects (See Exhibit VIII). 5. COD/Developer Interface with DISD/DC The Developer interface is generally an independent function with only select individuals of each organization being included in the discussion. There is no overall developer coordination between entities. The COD may inquire about school sites with the developer but, there is no agreed upon or codified requirements for school sites as part of the development review process. Currently, it is left to the developer to make contact and work through the development requirements with the District. Included in Exhibit VII are three examples of the most recent Master Planned Communities projects and the level of school site planning that was addressed in the process. These three examples are the Hills of Denton, Cole Ranch and Hunter Ranch (Inspiration). 6. DISD/COD Facility Site Selection Process The school site selection is an area that is critically important and impacts both the District and the City. The site selection process has traditionally been a very closed process involving only a select few. Yet, site selection can be a very important factor in determining the overall project costs. Good site selection can reduce the number of project challenges and associated construction costs. Good coordination of site selection coupled with appropriate confidentiality would yield future benefits. 7. COD/DC/DISD Planning Coordination Currently each entity does some level of planning for infrastructure needs utilizing various data from a variety of different sources. These planning efforts are primarily independent in nature and little information is ever shared as it relates to each other. The City and DISD do attempt to present the status of projects related to development and the associated need for infrastructure at the quarterly joint meetings between the Board and Council. However, there is very little coordination of common demographics, infrastructure forecasting and project timing between the COD and DISD and no meaningful interaction with the County except for independent Precinct meetings regarding County projects (generally transportation). Generally, the funding interface with the County for joint transportation projects is through the COD's and County's hired consultant, Innovative Transportation Solutions, (ITS). RECOMMENDATIONS: The following recommendations are being proposed by the Ad Hoc Committee for consideration by the Denton City Council, DISD Board of Trustees and Denton County Commissioners Court. • Consider approval of the Governmental Category Development Review Process (GCDRP). • Identify a single point of contact from each governmental entity to participate in the development review process for project oversight and facility planning. • Consider the inclusion of school district criteria as a formal infrastructure review and approval component of the development review process for Master Planned Community and large projects (1,500+ residential units). • Develop standard landscaping plans for each campus type with tree preservation and mitigation and environmentally sensitive areas (ESA) as the only variables from site to site. • Identify a select team of individuals that may be utilized in the facility site selection process that have agreed in advance with appropriate confidentiality terms and conditions. • Consider the development and coordination of annual Capital Project Planning updates for each entity. • Consider the restructuring of the facility planning and funding process to provide additional time for project coordination. Next Steps for the Governmental Category Development Review Process: The Governmental Category Development Review Process will need to be codified in the upcoming development code updates that are currently being addressed by the Planning Department. The development of the Community Facility Agreement will need to be reviewed by the Legal Department as to application and form. The first four bullet points in the recommendation section will also need to be considered by the Planning Department and Legal as to the appropriateness for development code inclusion. The identification of single point of contact for planning and a single point of contact for engineering has been identified by the City for all governmental category projects. EXHIBITS: L Current and Proposed Development Process Presented by TN&P IL Resolution from DISD III. Memo from Mayor to DISD Board President IV. Members of the Ad Hoc Committee V. Governmental Category Development Review Process VI. Community Facilities Agreement (CFA) VII. MPC School Site Identification VIII. Cole Ranch Site Planning and Campus Analysis Example THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 11, F-I El E E m IN C k a ~ ion Q N P L:j i DENTON INDEPENDEN'T' SCHOOL DISTRICT Resolution to the Denton City Council Tuesday, March 10, 2009 i ' Whereas, the voters of the Denton Independent School District passed a $282 million dollar package on Nov 6, 2007 Whereas, the Denton school district is one of the fastest growing school F districts in North Texas and the number of students increased from 15,951 to 22 221 in the past five years Whereas the Denton school district has time sensitive construction schedules contingent upon the school calendar and are based upon the rapid growth needs of the District Whereas, the needs of the students and the cost of financing construction are h escalating on a rapid scale thus requiring the need for efficient and expeditious F action in the planning and development of educational facilities Whereas, the district must establish attendance zones re route transportation and notify parents, our partners in education as well as staff facilities for the school operation months in advance of occupancy and must rely on timely c, construction completion Whereas, the Denton school district often must undertake complex school = renovations while campuses remain occupied which warrants endeavors to phase in construction projects in order to provide for the safest and most favorable educational environment possible + Whereas, the City of Denton has historically been an integral partner with the i Denton school district in the education of the community s youth thus the district is committed to maintain an open communication by keeping the city informed of projects as they are developed r,~ aoa~eaaa~~rsv tr~us~ ~ A Whereas the Denton Independent School District as a governmental subdivision of the State of Texas, is neither a commercial nor residential developer Therefore, Be it Resolved that the Denton ISD Board of Trustees advocates for and encourages the Denton City Council to consider the establishment of a new tier of development processes for governmental agencies including but not limited to the Denton Independent School District Be it Further Resolved that the Denton ISD Board of Trustees respectfully v , requests the City of Denton join with the district in creating an ad hoc administrative committee for the purpose of investigating analyzing and developing recommendations for the implementation of these processes as a governmental partner Passed and approved on the 1 t" of Ma q09 cc~a4 rh Charles Stafford Board President Jim Alexand r Board Vice President Mia Price Board Secretary Curtis Ramsey Board Member ` J netta Smith Board Member Glenna Harris Board Member r - Rudy Rodriguez Board Member y Ity o of 215 E. M(:Kinney Street Denton, Texas 76201 (940) 349-7717 FAX (940) 349-8596 OFFICE OFTHE MAYOR April 10, 2009 Mr. Charles Stafford DISD Board President 1307 North Locust Street Denton, Texas 76201 RE: DISD Resolution to the Denton City Council Dear Mr. Stafford: The City of Denton received the Resolution approved by the Denton ISD Board of Trustees on March 10, 2009. As always, the City of Denton appreciates the opportunity to meet with the District to discuss important matters that represent issues that often challenge each organization. I firmly believe that the more effectively the two organizations can communicate and work. together the better the results for the Denton community. In regard to the Resolution, the City of Denton is clearly seeking ways to improve our processes and to promote a more efficient system for developing property and projects in the City. The Denton City Council supports, in concept, the establishment of a separate tier of development process for governmental agencies. We recognize that both Denton County and the DISD (and perhaps other governmental entities) have characteristics, interests and focus that differ from the residential and commercial development communities. It is my understanding that the City of Denton and the DISD staff members are currently meeting to address this "governmental development tier" concept, as well as other significant topics. Formalizing this group of administrators as an ad hoc committee as suggested in your Resolution should help move the review process forward towards a mutually beneficial result. I would further propose that a member of the Denton County staff be included with this existing group to work out the process details more broadly applicable to all governmental development. In addition, it has been my experience that effective processes are not usually the result of a single solution, It would be my suggestion to not limit the scope of the staff committee and allow them the freedom to address and make recommendations on all issues that may be impacting the construction process. The joint DISD Board of Trustees and Denton City Council meetings have proven to be an excellent forum to discuss issues affecting both organizations. The existing staff committee represents an "Dedicated to Quality Service" wwiv.eityofdenton.coin effective way for the organizations to address issues and improve working relations. The Denton City Council appreciates the dedication and willingness of the Board and DISD management staff to dedicate the necessary resources to address these challenges, Sincerely, Mark A, Burroughs, Mayor City of Denton MAB/acj "Dedicated to Quality Service" w"vwx4yofdenton.com i b Illy , i THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK - I mj u ---------1 a E i O U =0Q - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~Q ~Q I 1 ~z0 ro 0 U 0 n ~Q Q L - - J CO sE -6 ~ ro ro i w cn a - w w 0 a a w L ° 1 w Q N > 0 w LL a~ a V - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - IL ww ~Q x CL n o a a o > E CO I. Z W _ a i ? U C C (f} Q t_ Q 0 0 C > w H d N d a° Q O 'E J U d Q K IL ~ N M V J w Q ~ y~ o ~m ~ W d F > o r E z y > 0 o D J= w ~ v c ao 0 0 M N O N O O C N d N U Q N Q C? N O fl C d QQa) N Q U Q E U o 0 N B 0 QCC~0 w'o g~.oc m a g coQ F 8 > O O X L KK M r N Q U O SS iA U._ -a- EL CT w L" =0 a a - = N N r1. m air cu- Q N =a w N= cn a Q 0 (wjQ LL~ ~zo O> vQ Bo a a w ~ ~ a- a a w a. - N w J tS Q N N > Q Z Q. a_ Q a w CL W d E v Q C U ~ c/~ N N LV a 4 Id w q O _ _ _ _ _U N J a m w E v w LL 2 > a° U Q~ w LLa « A.0 0 LLJ wW n0a~•-««w ~ H Q L E ~ a = Q U a Q~~ (e - J co~ FO U ` ~J O A CJ .C0 CJ N Z G W H Q V-u,. _ -o 0 0 G o L w Q U d Q \w O LUA) -j 2 N> F y > o of O o m J = 2 v c ao 0 0 C 0 ~ > N C dA~U m ~~=E a o a~ U E~ a -a CL 0-0 QU Q o U 0 0 N "GOVERNMENTAL" CATEGORY crrr„Fi`m ❑ DEVELOPMENT PROCESS -fi- tAaaifions ❑ nda: I, n, -rlni n:alC ny1 Approval Process ❑ • , i I 1 IV I ,I 'I1':'Il:~ Process Seq.-mg for • x,,, ,11'. ~I I:. the. "N- Governmental" Category t i n ; il'C In i''.;I lApl ^ i.:'. • J In rev. ~pil II 'I!III h" w •Vd rid n:.;. P"®mm®m®e _ a I wir:n i iI i 1 Civil Review Process (F S. Arort) 311 dn '"ppl II 'I Imp; _o: 1.1 l S.. , n d; I di" i'w ,.I y Submit PAC. awl fFview'PAC Suhmit PAt ,,md,ovi- PAC rnuh. ,I Cc nllllt Ills with ~ilp_ ~ r r;Pf ,lafl/apple do V~nRinecr nliruni:y I ill m n:~n: hsii astruciun)idwit'w ,ad „oJ,l u.~ I` Subn~lt Site plon th.l: ~hamc: fhc ~[l rn~in;;. • I I i •CRy Vda't r So-~n~er, D Inagt', i n i`i I i ~n In i~,n 1. road<tha; would oo,( pmpcrly. "q- • Include t flan any I.SA . ire ,In 'i ) loodplai i%Prcd_Land ,cape Plan. 'c;p n i nI Ili I :I h,pi, ~lu~i'.m •Idcn':Ity i Wt~ ite r xtens ion • rca3ulrCrncn LS ;,nd a~,utuated srtr~of i rt ca5cmcn,z. •;Cl 1;;.. • klon;ify ROW dcdlc,atlor., • rl.,n sideva, ~Ik unc(nxtion, ill i.Il ~t hiI ,i'.m perltnr,er su vet paving- • ; • ",,I {eagle Generutlon data. Is 1IA ne<~dcd? Nun P-[) !ionality Modc1 for l Il "i:~ I n m t si a, I s ;:i:ms, ~ a ; 1 i,11I~-~tl Sub it e;d ,c7 appovello r Interim 1 ¢ r, •;r plan. I ~ uln. I nrl I, Appli In ;n.i_..II • If dc'cntion required, ;ubltul: • c,{:~ !`.u~':.J prelirnlnari J,1,1 gn calr ul ons u w,iny, and Include pond m ht Site H,i ; 1 ump. d<ntrn'ion . " t i. a^.lio t c yuirvd 1)ef0rrtoe dl°icnIW iy"t ;:'.;n p l a.i •1 ~p I li ~I;.~ I De:entio pond car, be initially ons,ns; d t ;crve ar •14 •,edirneni pond -111 Al,pll "k, I I irmporary - owlvti • , Show cn )it_: Plan a, for e,clean -.ttd grade nt tiHr. q', T? Pn uxva Gon/Wir",hon Administrative Slle Plan Apfttoval PHASE 1 Phase 2 (Over) Sheetl Green Field IJ Renovations Additions Approval Process ❑ Prottss Segnenchtgfm Phase 2 the. "Non Governmental"` Approval Process TXDor /ApprovaAl Mobilil y RI'view Process .,nani r ~ (FDl~ f Inp A ;ly1, 1MW Iden Inn I •lxllo!Vumnt I •Pi~riir; t~fer S:r<~t~l liner nvt~rtxit!~. LSD •Sidowalks SINE PP i - r1pproval I I PI u[ es; I ~r D2) Ln vlro n nt on t al Rt VI A, f :d Plair, 5'.rdy n~h1r n.,. •I S,A'"AIPh 1 lcn •TI h,A (CI.Oh9 R. LOAiR) 1~. CORP ftiMl1 •CORP (404) ~ Appwval ~ 1 r:' 1 1 Out .i tl i:/Avenc:y •l xL" Il P&M D11 I •LLf1,/A 112'1 j 1 oc 1 ~ 1 I •CORP (FD 2&3) I Ptcl o, 1 1 ~FD4) 1 1 1 1 I WI ~ ~i ~linin,uy 'Id: ~ ',I I i.:val I I 1 P/P Infl,tsl rue lur0 Approval -final 'I.r Al;piuv l 1 11improvements) 1 3-Way Development Contrecf. ~ 1 1 I I I I I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I P/P Inspecfirm ' 1 I 1 I ,,°/P IInIaSLuc:urc ) ®®m®m®®m____-1 I r (water . uu Aca~pGUice ESA, Final Drainage, Sidewalks, Traffic, W/W W Sheetl CFA PROCESS: 1. Infrastructure plans must first be approved and assigned a City project number and DOE number before submitting a CFA application. 2. A Final Plat title and case number is required on page 1 of this application. 3. Fire Line and/or Tap information must be provided on page 5; Water Development Services will not release service to the site without clearance from this office. Failure to include this information will result in delays to occupying the building(s). 4. An Engineer's Estimate of Probable Cost is acceptable to initiate the CFA. However, the project costs as detailed in the construction contract will ultimately determine the amounts of financial guarantee, materials testing fee, and inspection fee required. The correct guarantee and fee amounts must be received prior to the scheduling of a preconstruction meeting or City-execution of the CFA. 5. PLAT will be cleared for filing upon City's execution of the CFA, except where a Completion Agreement is utilized as a financial guarantee. 6, Pre-construction Meeting - scheduled after full execution of the CFA (developer and City) and upon receipt of a signed Financial Release Form by the CFA office. 7. Letter of Acceptance - upon final inspection, materials testing and inspection fee amounts will be recalculated using the actual construction cost (contract cost plus change orders). Should the fee amounts increase, the additional monies must be received prior to the issuance of the City's Letter of Acceptance, 8. Water projects - a contactor's lien release attesting paid in full by the developer and releasing the developer and City for all future claims is required before releasing the developer's financial guarantee. 9. Refunds - are issued to the entity paying the fees; to receive a refund or reimbursement requires registering as a Vendor. Instructions for registering can be found by visiting WWVV.FORTWOR THGOV.ORG and Click on Business. 10. Financial Guarantee - is released upon receipt of any fees due, contractor's lien release (if required) and signed final pay sheets from the City's construction office. CITY OF FORT WORTH PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CFA DIVISION Catherine Davidson Jana Knight CFA Coordinator CFA Administrative Assistant Desk: 817-392-8188 817-392-2025 Email: cc atheriine_.c1gviq~ ar ? crtwcartE , ©cv.nrg Jana.l ni [it ic~rtwr~rth.~©v,tarcl CFA Application Rev: Dec 2009 pg. 6 of 6 c:\documents&settings/davidsc/my documents Print Form COMMUNITY FACILITIES AGREEMENT THE STATE OF TEXAS § City Secretary COUNTY OF TARRANT § Contract No. WHEREAS, the undersigned "Developer" desires to make certain improvements (refer to the name of the project at the bottom of the page) an addition to the City of Fort Worth, Texas; and WHEREAS, the said Developer has requested the City of Fort Worth, a home-rule municipal corporation situated in Tarrant, Denton, Parker, and Wise Counties, Texas, hereinafter called "City", to do certain work in connection with said improvements. Developer Information: Developer Company Name: Authorized Signatory: Title: Project Name: Project Location; Additional Streets: Plat Case No. Plat Name: Mapsco: =Council District: CityProject No: To be completed by staff Received by: Date: CFA: DOE: 1 NOW, THEREFORE, KNOW ALL BY THESE PRESENTS: For and in consideration of the covenants and conditions contained herein, the City and the Developer do hereby agree as follows: General Requirements A. The Policy for the Installation of Community Facilities ("Policy") dated March 2001, approved by the City Council of the City of Fort Worth and subsequently amended from time to time via a Mayor and Council Communication adopted by the City Council of the City of Fort Worth, is hereby incorporated into this Community Facilities Agreement ("CFA") as if copied herein verbatim. Developer agrees to comply with all provisions of said Policy in the performance of its duties and obligations hereunder and to cause all contractors hired by Developer to comply with the Policy in connection with the work performed by said contractors. B. Developer shall provide financial security in conformance with paragraph 6, Section II, of the Policy and recognizes that there shall be no reduction in the collateral until the Project has been completed and the City has officially accepted the infrastructure. Developer further acknowledges that said process requires the contractor to submit an Affidavit of Bills paid signed by its contractor and Consent of Surety signed by its surety to ensure the contractor has paid the sub-contractor and suppliers in full. Additionally, the contractor will provide in writing that the contractor has been paid in full for all the services provided under this contract. C. Developer agrees to cause the construction of the improvements contemplated by this Agreement and that said construction shall be completed in a good and workmanlike manner and in accordance with all City standards and the City-approved construction plans, specifications and cost estimates provided for the Project and the exhibits attached hereto. D. The following checked exhibits are made a part hereof: Water (A) El Sewer (A-1) Paving (B) El, Storm Drain (B-1) __0 Street Lights & Signs (C) 0. E. The Developer shall award all contracts for the construction of community facilities in accordance with Section II, paragraph 7 of the Policy and the contracts for the construction of the public infrastructure shall be administered in conformance with paragraph 8, Section II, of the Policy. Combined CFA final Sept 12, 2008 2 F. For all infrastructure included in this Agreement for which the Developer awards construction contract(s), Developer agrees to the following: i. To employ a construction contractor who is approved by the director of the department having jurisdiction over the infrastructure to be constructed, said contractor to meet City's requirements for being insured, licensed and bonded to do work in public streets and/or prequalified to perform water/waste water construction as the case may be, ii. To require its contractor to furnish to the City a payment and performance bond in the names of the City and the Developer for one hundred percent (100%) of the contract price of the infrastructure, and a maintenance bond in the name of the City for one hundred percent (100%) of the contract price of the infrastructure for a period of two (2) years insuring the maintenance and repair of the constructed infrastructure during the term of the maintenance bond. All bonds to be furnished before work is commenced and to meet the requirements of Chapter 2253, Texas Government Code. iii, To require the contractor(s) it hires to perform the construction work contemplated herein to provide insurance equal to or in excess of the amounts required by the City's standard specifications and contract documents for developer-awarded infrastructure construction contracts, The City shall be named as additional insured on all insurance required by said documents and same will be evidenced on the ACORD Certificate of Insurance supplied by the contractor's insurance provider and bound in the construction contract book. iv. To require its contractor to give 48 hours notice to the City's Construction Services Division of intent to commence construction so that City inspection personnel will be available; and to require the contractor to allow the construction to be subject to inspection at any and all times by City inspection forces, and not to install or relocate any sanitary sewer, storm drain, or water pipe unless a responsible City inspector is present and gives his consent to proceed, and to make such laboratory tests of materials being used as may be required by the City. v. To require its contractor to have fully executed contract documents submitted to the City to schedule a Pre-Construction Meeting. The 3 submittal should occur no less than 10 working days prior to the desired date of the meeting. No construction will commence without a City- issued Notice to Proceed to the Developer's contractor. vi. To delay connections of buildings to service lines of sewer and water mains constructed under this Agreement until said sewer and water mains and service lines have been completed to the satisfaction of the Water Department. G. Developer agrees to provide, at its expense, all engineering drawings and documents necessary to construct the improvements required by this Agreement. H. Developer shall cause the installation or adjustment of the required utilities to serve the development or to construct the improvements required herein. 1. City shall not be responsible for any costs that may be incurred by Developer in the relocation of any utilities that are or may be in conflict with any of the community facilities to be installed hereunder. J. Developer hereby releases and agrees to indemnify, defend and hold the City harmless for any inadequacies in the preliminary plans, specifications and cost estimates supplied by the Developer for this Agreement. K. Developer agrees to provide, at its expense, all necessary rights of way and easements across property owned by Developer and required for the construction of the current and future improvements provided for by this Agreement. L. The Developer further covenants and agrees to, and by these presents does hereby, fully indemnify, hold harmless and defend the City, its officers, agents and employees from all suits, actions or claims of any character, whether real or asserted, brought for or on account of any injuries or damages sustained by any persons (including death) or to any property, resulting from or in connection with the construction, design, performance or completion of any work to be performed by said Developer, his contractors, subcontractors, officers, agents or employees, or in consequence of any failure to properly safeguard the work, or on account of any act, intentional or otherwise, neglect or misconduct of said DEVELOPER, his contractors, sub-contractors, officers, agents or employees, whether or not such iniuries, death or damages are caused, in whole or in part, by the alleged negligence of the City of Combined CFA final Sept 12, 2008 4 Fort Worth, its officers, servants, or employees. M. Developer will further require its contractors to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents and employees from and against any and all claims, suits or causes of action of any nature whatsoever, whether real or asserted, brought for or on account of any injuries or damages to persons or property, including death, resulting from, or in any way connected with, the construction of the infrastructure contemplated herein, whether or not such injuries, death or damages are caused, in whole or in part, by the alleged negligence of the City of Fort Worth, its officers, servants, or employees. Further, Developer will require its contractors to indemnify, and hold harmless the City for any losses, damages, costs or expenses suffered by the City or caused as a result of said contractor's failure to complete the work and construct the improvements in a good and workmanlike manner, free from defects, in conformance with the Policy, and in accordance with all plans and specifications and shall cause to be executed and delivered to the City an indemnity agreement from such contractors on a form to be promulgated by the City. N. Upon completion of all work associated with the construction of the infrastructure and improvements, Developer will assign to the City a non- exclusive right to enforce the contracts entered into by the Developer with its contractor along with an assignment of all warranties given by the contractor, whether express or implied. Further, Developer agrees that all contracts with, any contractor shall include provisions granting to the City the right to enforce such contracts as an express intended third party beneficiary of such contracts. O. Inspection and material testing fees are required as follows: i. Developer shall pay in cash water and wastewater inspection fees and material testing fees equal to two percent (2%) for a total of 4% of the developer's share of the total construction cost as stated in the construction contract. ii. Developer shall pay in cash paving and storm drain inspection fees equal to four percent (4%) and material testing fees equal to two percent (2%) for a total of 6% of the developer's share of the total construction cost as stated in the construction contract. 5 iii. Developer shall pay in cash the total cost of streetlights or if the city is not installing the streetlights, inspection fees equal to four percent (4%) of the developer's share of the streetlight construction cost as stated in the construction contract. iv. Developer shall pay in cash the total cost of street signs. P. COMPLETION WITHIN 2 YEARS i. The City's obligation to participate (exclusive of front foot charges) in the cost of the community facilities shall terminate if the facilities are not completed within two (2) years; provided, however, if construction of the community facilities has started within the two year period, the developer may request that the CFA be extended for one year. If the community facilities are not completed within such extension period, there will be no further obligation of the City to participate. City participation in a CFA shall be subject to the availability of City funds and approval by the Fort Worth City Council. ii. Nothing contained herein is intended to limit the Developer's obligations under the Policy, this Agreement, its financial guarantee, its agreement with its contractor or other related agreements. iii. The City may utilize the Developer's financial guarantee submitted for this Agreement to cause the completion of the construction of the community facilities if at the end of two (2) years from the date of this Agreement the community facilities have not been completed and accepted. iv. The City may utilize the Developer's financial guarantee to cause the completion of the construction of the community facilities or to cause the payment of costs for construction of same before the expiration of two (2) years if the Developer breaches this Agreement, becomes insolvent or fails to pay costs of construction and the financial guarantee is not a Completion Agreement. If the financial guarantee is a Completion Agreement and the Developer's contractors and/or suppliers are not paid for the costs of supplies and/or construction, the contractors and/or suppliers may put a lien upon the property which is the subject of the Completion Agreement. Combined CFA final Sept 12, 2008 6 Cost Summary Sheet Project: CFA No.: DOE No.: An Engineer's Estimate of Probable Cost is acceptable. However, the construction contract price will ultimately determine the amount of CFA fees and financial guarantee. The bid price and any additional CFA payments will be required prior to scheduling a pre-construction meeting. An itemized estimate corresponding to each project-specific exhibit is required to support the following information. Items Developer's Cost A. Water and Sewer Construction 1. Water 2. Sewer a. Water and Sewer Construction Cost Sub-Total $ B. TPW Construction 1. Street $ 2. Storm Drain $ 3. Street Lights L$ TPW Construction Cost Sub-Total $ Total Construction Cost (excluding the fees): $ Construction Fees: C. Water/Sewer Inspection Fee (2%) $ D. Water/Sewer Material Testing Fee (2%) $ Sub-Total for WaterlSewer Construction Fees $ E. TPW Inspection Fee (4%) $ F. TPW Material Testing (2%) H. Street Signs Installation Cost Sub-Total for TPW Construction Fees $ Total Construction Fees: $ Choice Financial Guarantee Options, choose one Amount ck one) Bond = 100% $ Completion Agreement = 100% / Holds Plat $ Cash Escrow Water/Sanitary Sewer= 125% $ Cash Escrow Paving/Storm Drain r= 125% $ Letter of Credit = 125% w/2 r expiration period $ 7 IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the City of Fort Worth has caused this instrument to be executed in quadruplicate in its name and on its behalf by its Assistant City Manager, attested by its City Secretary, with the corporate seal of the City affixed, and said Developer has executed this instrument in quadruplicate, at Fort Worth, Texas this day of 1200 CITY OF FORT WORTH - Recommended by: Water Department Transportation & Public Works Department Wendy Chi-Babulal, EMBA, RE. William A. Verkest, P.E. Development Engineering Manager Director Approved as to Form & Legality: Approved by City Manager's Office Amy J. Ramsey Fernando Costa Assistant City Attorney Assistant City Manager ATTEST: Marty Hendrix City Secretary ATTEST Developer Company Name Signature Signature (Print) Name: Print Name: Title Combined CFA final Sept 12, 2008 8 Check items associated with the project being undertaken; checked items must be included as Attachments to this Agreement Included Attachment 11 Location Map Exhibit A: Water Improvements Water Estimate Exhibit A-1: Sewer Improvements Sewer Estimate Exhibit B: Paving Improvements Paving Estimate El Exhibit B-1: Storm Drain Improvements E] Storm Drain Estimate 10 Exhibit C: Street Lights and Signs Improvements 10 Street Lights and Signs Estimate (Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank) 9 (Assigned by staff) CFA No: 200 DOE No: Date: COMMUNITY FACILITIES AGREEMENT APPLICATION ARE CITY FUNDS PART OF THIS PROJECT? TPW Department - Water Department _ Specify amounts: Housing and Economic Development _ Paving $ Storm Drain $ OTHER: specify awarding department Note: A Developer executed CFA, all fees, and financial Water $ guarantee must be received and approved Before a request for Sanitary Sewer $ City participation from TPW or the Water Dept will be considered by the Fort Worth City Council. PROJECT TYPES - CHECK ALL THAT APPLY: B3 - Drainage A -Water B - Paving Channel C1 - Street Signs B4 - Recorded Easement Al - Wastewater B1 - Storm drain Dedication document C2 - Signals B2 - Median A2 - Fire Lines Landscaping C -Street Lights C3 - Transformer(s) 1. PROJECT INFORMATION Provide information for each box City Project Name: Project No. Project Plat Case Address/Location; No. Other plats associated with this CFA Other CFAs associated with this plat Subdivision Name Block Numbers Lot Numbers ZIP [Council District Fort Worth Ma sco code II. APPLICANT/ DEVELOPER INFORMATION 1. Applicant / Developer 2. Developer Type Individual Entity 3. City Vendor No. * Required to receive refunds or reimbursements 4. Contac Name Title: 5. Street Address City St Zip 6. P.O. Box City St Zip 7. Contact No's Phone: Cell: E-MAIL: Web: CFA Application Rev: Dec 2009 pg. 1 of 6 c:\documents&settings/davidsc/my documents III. SIGNATORY INFORMATION 1. Applicant / Developer 2. Developer Type Individual Entity 3. City Vendor No. * Required to receive refunds or reimbursements 4. Contac Name Title: 5. Street Address City St Zip 6. P.O. Box City St Zip 7. Contact No's Phone: Cell: E-MAIL: Web: IV. AGENT/ CONSULTANT INFORMATION 1. Agent/ Consultant 2, Contact Person Title 3. Street Address St zip 4. P.O. Box St Zi 5. Contact Numbers Phone: T Cell: 6. Email s V. PROJECT EXHIBITS (Exhibits must be "8 %X 11" and clearly define all proposed construction) General Exhibits - Required for all projects Approved Cover Page Infrastructure Design / Vicinity Map Plat Map Engineering Submittal Project Specific Exhibits - Must correspond to the Project Types checked above A -Water B -Paving C -Street Lights Al - Wastewater B1 - Storm drain C1 - Street Signs A2 - Fire Lines B2 - Median Landscaping C2 - Signals B3 - Drainage Channel C3 - Transformer(s) B4 - RECORDED Easement Dedication CFA Application Rev: Dec 2009 pg. 2 of 6 c:\documents&settings/davidsc/my documents VI. COST ESTIMATES: An Engineer's Estimate of Probable Cost is acceptable. However, the final construction contract price will ultimately determine the amount of CFA fees and financial guarantee. For releasing the Letter of Acceptance, at project completion all applicable Change Orders will be reconciled to the CFA Bid/Contract documents, any and all additional fees must first be paid to the CFA office. Signed bid documents and any additional CFA fee payments and adjustments to financial guarantee are required prior to the City executing the CFA or scheduling a pre-construction meeting. An itemized estimate corresponding to each project-specific exhibit is required to support the following information. Estimated Project Cost (double click spreadsheet for entry and auto calculations) $ 500.00 Administrative Fee NON-REFUNDABLE Inspection Fee Construction Cost Water Construction Item x .02 Testing 'Fee x .02 Fees Total $ - A -Water Line $ - $ - $ - Al - Sanitary Sewer Line $ - $ - $ - $ - WATER TOTALS $ - $ ' - $ - Inspection Fee TPW Construction Item ( x .04) Testing Fee x.02) Fees Total B - Paving $ - $ - $ - 131 - Stormdrain $ - $ - $ - B2 - Median Landscaping $ - $ - B3 - Drainage Channel $ - $ - $ - C - Street Lights $ - $ - C1 -Street Signs $ - $ - C2 - Signal(s) $ - $ C3 - Transformers $ - $ - $ - TPW TOTALS $ - $ - $ - $ - PROJECT TOTALS $ - $ - $ VII. FEE PAYMENTS: Submit separate checks for Water and TPW fee items. Please include the City Project No., DOE No., and fee type (application, inspection, testing, etc) on the check face. Application fee may be submitted as a separate check or grouped with Water and/or TPW checks. CFA Application Rev: Dec 2009 pg. 3 of 6 c:\documents&settings/davidsc/my documents VIII. FINANCIAL GUARANTEE INFORMATION (Check one) Processing Time: minimum 10 business days Cash Escrow - Acceptable formats include Business Check or Cashier's Check 1 @ 125% of all Water/Wastewater (items A & Al & A2) 1 @ 125% TPW projects. (items B & B1 & B2 & B3) Developer's Bond 1 original @ 100% of total project cost (items A, Al, A2, B, B1, B2, & 133) Letter of Credit - Must have minimum 2 year expiration term. Must be payable by fax or be issued by a bank within DFW region. 1 original @ 125% of total project cost (items A, Al, A2, B, B1, B2 & 133) Processing Time: minimum 15 business days Completion Agreement - Plat held until project completion 4 originals @ 100% of total project cost (items A, Al, A2, B, B1, B2 & 133) IX. BUILDING PERMITS (List building permits for all properties associated with this CFA) Address Permit No. Date Issued Status X. PARKWAY / STREET USE PERMITS (List parkway permits for all properties associated with his CFA) Address Permit No. Date Issued Status CFA Application Rev: Dec 2009 pg. 4 of 6 c:\documents&settings/davidsc/my documents WATER DEVELOPMENT TAP REQUEST Please indicate all taps (domestic, commercial, fire line, irrigation) being requested for this project. Complete addresses, Number & Street, Lot, Blk, Addition, or Abstract, Tract & Survey must be noted. Water Development will not release service until cleared by the CFA office. If platting, we recommend you contact the Fire Dept. as soon as possible about new addressing. All Water fees (tap, per acre, water main capacity charges, etc.) and meter deposits must be paid before starting vertical construction unless work is done through Misc Project then all fees including Misc Project design fees and water/sewer extension cost will be required prior to Misc project proceed to construction. DOMESTIC Wafer Sewer Irrigation Fireline Address: 19856 Domestic Way Qty Size Qty Size Qty Size Qty Size Lot 5 Blk/Tr 23 1 11/2 1 1 Address: Lot Blk/Tr Address: Lot B1k/Tr Address: Lot Blk/Tr Address: Lot Blk/Tr COMMERCIAL Water Sewer Irrigation Fireline Address: 19856 Commercial Lane Qty Size Qty Size Qty Size Qty Size Lot 5 Blk/Tr 23 1 11/2 1 1 Address: Lot Blk/Tr Address: Lot Blk/Tr CFA Application Rev: Dee 2009 pg. 5 of 6 c:\documents&settings/davidsc/my documents THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK P~ _ FtiL 'IL ~ IJ w u ~ ~ 1-b Ty / F-q b~ ICY}}~~, ~ ~ J r~- L F-I Prizwx} - 1 - r;, I 1 w - a~ U V 1 Y L1 = _ = aw.2. U) Q 11 El - /Alk Fl~ U ~ W P-~ W ~ W O a H OW W Q O m E m C VU A a - - ry 2 c - L = N 1 a d C ~ w W - J ro O Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q c ~i - N t Y m W O W N o N V N H c O. C t M N V f0 N T LLI c 0- Yi w W W W W A u) _ W W W r \ d y° Q a a a a a a a a \ 3 U 2 (n ~ ¢ m N M V ll¢ m (O y I m z 0 J K~ Y m ~u m ae,s a,uuJS .S d ~ PI - w Pa M "oy a~ m ~ Ada ~ d aa. S' a as s~m pa p M / 7 = J ~ n T (W-4-a) -Pd awed u4-1 (builsix ® -3xidd xxgr - y ~ LO w N w m K w Q w 3 r K K (D O m I x L_ C •C O N r 0 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK - /Alk Fl~ U ~ W P-~ W ~ W O a H OW W Q Proposed Phasing Plan 'Hr15F 41E1 PHASI. VI 11. PHASE 14'' F'I i:~~;L I11 PHASE VII W - - PHASE lI i+ I ~ha rL :R. PHASE I , ~n a U V 0 O 'D 'D 1- N N h N N O O O O O O O O O O o 0 '40 t` T N a, M c0 00 10 ~O Cl E M N O V1 h O In h O h h O O Vi t~ M oo l~ t` d' N Vl M h N m N 7 Vl d' ~O d' ~t M ID N N .O O ~ rl N k F W N N N M M a V O N N N N ~ ~ O N N M M \ V O N M It O d- ~D V1 oo Q, V1 V1 O N N ~O O N V1 W M 'd' h h h M N-+-+ b O N N N O N ~O M O h Vl O M M l~ M N ~n 0o M d' Vl m M N C N N rn ~D M O D\ Vl In O N N ~O O N V1 r- M V'1 kO V1 M ~O N --~D N ray O N O N I M O o M NO V1 Vl ~O V1 M ~D N ~D N N ~D O O~ N O~ O ~D M O a, V1 In o o l~ m V ~n ~O n M ID a W o _ _ 00 rt--(`I O V 00 I'D M O l~ 00 Vl Vl O M M h N h M ul "0 M N It In ~D oo N Vl M ID N --~--d' x a N N F-i ~ N U va a ° H N Z N N D\ N - b M o W N l- w) V1 O N N D\ W m a, h Mf N 't h~ oo N V'1 M ~O N .r N F H O W O --D\ O O~ ~D M oo j h V1 V1 o M M h u C n M rn O N d' ~n N N ~n M ~O N N i O V1 N l"Mr In N Q\ M M O O 'n V1 O D1 ^ M~ of a M N 'ch Vl N oo M N In n ~O N m a N ~ ~ .a a In Ga V W 1-- 00 N N d' M O l~ '((yam,, ~ .M-+ m am lD M O O l~ V1 V1 O W a C o, N lD ID Vl n M d' M N d' v, N oo M N Vl M ~D N O o0 7 M M Q N ~ M ~ cq N N m N n n N T O O N I rl (7) N ~D v) h M V H d' M N N o0 M N Vl 00 Q O oo e N N p, N 1` oo N N m 0 1- h M O~ N o o 00 ~ M ~ M N N W M N Vl 00 O oo N N ~-1 lO 1, N N d' M d h N N O O O O~ N ~O ~D n 7 i' d' M O~ oo M O l~ N N N O lo N O N N z z N 7 z z Z Z Z z z z z z z z z z z N WMMWuuu d' lD Vl 1~ oo h t~ m D\ N' V1 m N ~O ~n U o iD FF_744 m M hl N N m N nl M N m m N m N N hl F a ~ _ a Exhibit VIII. DISD Planning Criteria DISD Facility Planning Criteria DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA • 400 - Elementary Students per 1,000 homes • 170 - Middle School Students per 1,000 homes • 180 - High School Students per 1,000 homes • 0.75 - Students per Single Family Residential Household o 0.40 - Elementary Students o 0.17- Middle School Students o 0.18- High School Students • 0.12 - Students per Non Subsidized Apartment Unit o 0.06 - elementary Students o 0.03 - Middle School Students o 0.03 - High School Students • 0.53 -Total Students per Subsidized Apartment Unit o 0.30 - Elementary Students o 0.12- Middle School Students o 0.11- High School Students STUDENTS PER CAMPUS TYPE • 650 Students per Elementary Campus • 1,000 Students per Middle School Campus • 2,000 Students per High School Campus MINIMUM ACRES PER CAMPUS • 15 acres minimum for Elementary Campus • 30 acres minimum for Middle School Campus 0 50 acres minimum for High School Campus H~ ow H~ W W W W W W d M 3 ~H Q y a a 4y W N ~H _ z x - - a z - a = v z a - ~ - s r. y - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - r F` ` O C7 F. ~ xmm mNNNmN .N. N N ~z ~ E H H W (Yi w •r• .a7 S a a--- N N N N N N N v v v m w ~ Q ~ ~ ~ O m w w W O ~ 9 ow H y ~ M ~ M w.. M. w.. M. w.. M. too MI w.. N.- A L Ua is silo -N juk sag a C U ~ - o ~ m v d a M =ir MY _ illy nfr hN 100 3 V 6 ~NF g = aS N oo , w t F ~ UL2 6 N F = o o O O -v N tw ~ - CJ a o v - a ~ N d Pw~¢~ i m y w C- q x q x - q x w q x w i- a x wqc., wq~, ~Jq~w ~wqc~~ q~ a v i = ~ 'a5 'a g Proposed Phasing Plan 'Hr15F 41E1 PHASI. VI 11. PHASE 14'' F'I i:~~;L I11 PHASE VII W - - PHASE lI i+ I ~ha rL :R. PHASE I , .ry N r r i I ~ i i i - - _ _ - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ C x 0p r-i O " M I - r i = i N N I v ' y y ~t ~G x r-- - O I--I 3-I O 0 f'- T x N N - N k' U ~ U ~ T x T x o Q = 1(, f y x x ~ Q M M 'T M M v~- ~ / I M pv+ U f O a Q V f O z ~l a ~ o I I I I I I I ~ iG iG x ~ r - - - w ~ w en ~i V - .r, T x K A ~ A w o .F o a o a Q .n w U ~ T It ~ Y 3 v, 3 ee e4 :5 N ~ ~ fl = fl = C Q o o W W pNCq _ .C. 3 Y 3 fl = fl = - F x 3 cl~ za fl fl fl O 06 G = = 4 i G d ~ ~ x b y G O N O D ry U ~ U ,ti N -4 -4 16 cl~ - - a z a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 - ~w 0~ e m ~ o o f1 r F N e N N N N fl _ fl r g b M _ b en K en _ N M v o - F o y K x eCn a _ w 3 e x ° w 3 It It m wwwww'~ - = Cwr Q = y = - - C '~'w a _ w y r - 'd r 1 f 3 o 0 0 0 0 0~ o _ U U U U U o 0 0 o m C Ca U o p" o en o o o m C Ca U o p" o en o w b Q~ s b b Q~ s b wwwwwF wwwww W ~.x H wc~v,v,c~c~c~roc~www ww~ wc~v,v,c~c~c~roc~www ww~ 9 fl .7-77 MIN 3 T 3 f 1 3 fl ~ fl = fl = fl = I Hill RII Hill I, Y 3 t` 3 3 _ fl fl = fl = fl = l~ w v~ F J - 3 a y _ - f 1 O fl fl fl A 3 - - - z 0 ~a i. ~ fl ~ fl 9 ds ds ds F aKi fy, 09 ~ P- CI ~ N F aKi fy, 09 ~ P- CI ~ F aKi fy, Oq ~ P- =L C w ~ w N w w N E 1 r ~ Q o ~ w ~ ~ G~ ~ u s s ~ Q o ~ w ~ ~ v~ dJ y s J - ~ Q o ~ k' ~ ~ G? ~ dJ v o .C Ca U o o ~ en o - o .Q o w o ~ ~ o - ~ Ca o a+ o ~ en o ~ a ~a Q H a ~a Q H a ~a Q 4~~ a ~H -5 t ac~vl vl c~c~c~roc~www.. awe ac~vl vl c~c~c~roc~www awe ac~vl vl c~c~c~roc~www awe 9 41 III Hill h1d w o .F o a o HIM Q .ne w P, N Q Till d - - ~ q Q o o m W m ttt Y 3 3 h t1 ~ rl = rl = v F 3 za fl fl ~ O A - - A - - b 3 - a - - z 0 J. ✓ o~ K Q U o W o~ M ~ o o~ C (a U o W o~ M€ ~ _ ~ N~ ~ ~ o~ b O a k N rQi] o N~ ~ ~ o~ b o~ k r. N~ KO W U v~ v~ U U U W U 0.. W W W 0.. U W U v~ v~ U U U W U 0.. W L W 0.. U g THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK