Loading...
O-2023-312 - 10/12/2023 ORDINANCE NO. 0-2023-312 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE 2023 TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN, WHICH CONSTITUTES THE CITY OF ROUND ROCK'S TRANSPORTATION POLICY; AND PROVIDING FOR A SAVINGS CLAUSE AND REPEALING CONFLICTING ORDINANCES OR RESOLUTIONS. WHEREAS, the City of Round Rock ("City") adopted the current Transportation Master Plan in 2017; and WHEREAS, the 2023 Transportation Master Plan, constituting the City's updated transportation policy, has been presented to the City Council for consideration; and WHEREAS, said Plan serves as a guiding document for transportation investment, policy, and future needs in the City for the next 20-30 years; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adopt the 2023 Transportation Master Plan, Now Therefore BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROUND ROCK, TEXAS: I. That the 2023 Transportation Master Plan, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein for all purposes, is hereby adopted. II. The 2023 Transportation Master Plan shall be incorporated as part of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and shall be referenced in the Zoning and Development Code, Code of Ordinances (2018 Edition), City of Round Rock, Texas as the "transportation master plan." 0112.20212 4864-7521-9584 iii. A. All ordinances, parts of ordinances, or resolutions in conflict herewith are expressly repealed. B. The invalidity of any section or provision of this ordinance shall not invalidate other sections or provisions thereof. C. The City Council hereby finds and declares that written notice of the date, hour, place and subject of the meeting at which this Ordinance was adopted was posted and that such meeting was open to the public as required by law at all times during which this Ordinance and the subject matter hereof were discussed, considered and formally acted upon, all as required by the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551 , Texas Government Code, as amended. Alternative 1. By motion duly made, seconded and passed with an affirmative vote of all the Council members present, the requirement for reading this ordinance on two separate days was dispensed with. READ, PASSED, and ADOPTED on first reading this day of 12023. Alternative 2. N READ and APPROVED on first reading this the L-V day of 2023. 2 READ, APPROVED and ADOPTED on second reading this the 4% 4day of O , 2023. Al CRAIG MORGAN, Oayor City of Round Rock, Texa ATTEST: \MEAGAN S KS, Ci Clerk 3 EXHIBIT Transportation Master Plan • oun oc Dom• 08/09/23 Table of Contents Introduction Executive 1 2 Page 04 Page 08 Page 11 Page 27 .. ;.# ,�:., ►�+. ��• Updating the State of Recommendations Conclusions and '' "" Ultimate Roadway Transportation Actions - _ � Network Funding Page 34 Page 44 Page 49 Page 79 � L � r �._ti� -r-.c��.-,--.tom-.-«►„se -c L .j = .y - - ROCH -� 41�:.1oil,Ili All ell III NM I a _ Igo IMF= MKI .-W . AM *_J%L b a/w ' . 1O Round Rock Transportation Master Plan �` DRAFT SUBMITTAL 08/09/23 • ntrod uct� on (DACS)implementation in the Design and Construction Standards Identification of high priority projects for roadways, trails, and Plan Overview intersections for the short-term, and The 2023 Transportation Master Collector street requirements recommendations. Plan serves as the guiding vision for transportation investment, policy, • and future needs in Greater Round RelationshipRock for the next 20-30 years for Pound 20 when Round Rock is built-out in the 30 current City limits and Greater Round Pock to •to R Rock. The document builds on the DEVELOPING FLITU RE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN City's strategic goals, past planning efforts, and aligns transportation Rock 20301 needs and recommendations with other City and Regional planning Round Rock 2030, the city's comprehensive plan, includes the City's efforts. The following page includes overarching vision, goals, and plan for future land use from 2020 to goals and objectives that served as 2030. The 2023 Transportation Master Plan includes consideration guiding principles in development of future land use projections, population, and employment in of the 2023 TMP. Some of the Round Rock 2030 to align with the Ultimate Roadway Plan. Figure significant recommendations and 1.1 shows growth projections indicating growth by over 50% in both elements of the 2023 TMP include the City limits and Greater Round Rock in the next 20 years. This will the following: create a significant need for investment to serve that growth with Ultimate Roadway Plan, a plan transportation infrastructure and managing traffic congestion. for the roadway network at Figure 1.2 displays the plan's Future Land Use Map (FLUM) which build-out to serve the City and is hosted on the Planning and Development Services Department Region - shown in Figure a website. The FLUM is the City's plan for projecting land uses and infrastructure demands in the City. The Transportation Master plan Recommended street used the Future Land Use Map to model transportation needs and cross sections and right- develop recommendations to serve future growth needs. of-way requirements for /// 4 1 Introduction&Executive Summary 111 liq DP• 08/09/23 IGURE I.1 - ROUND ROCK PLANNING AND MEMBER: TVIC111111 11��p 1 11111 ES DEPARTMENT 300,000 •000 — 228,933 200,000 ,' 150,000 161,136 Round Rock Population(Census) 100,000 (2020 99,8887 119,468 Greater Round Rock Projections „ • •000 30,923 1,2M 1,438 1,13B ,,, 900 1,173 1,21C 1,438 1,8M 2,811 1 2Z,74O IGURE 1.2 - ROUND ROCK 2030 FUTURE LAND USE PLAN 35 FUTURELAN VpR tl r �1'r � h4NOLt rr,.. �VENs�r i "y cR na • TRANSPORTATION , M n NS�4r y s/ o 9 S f 4= 45 Pound Pock Transportation Master Plan Introduction&Executive Sumn-)ary 1 5 ONUS dY NAIiN ��' F y _ F TO O N y •p +� /�tD Lp 8� O PJEPY RANON 6�v0 �� OCpA 0o I� ,m. (O� GATTIS SCHOOt'N m 2 r 2 F . . . • • . - • • • • ^ Integrate trails • " • •' • • .• " • - • ' • • and transit into • • • - • _ • • the plan Increase safety • ' • • • measures in FIGURE 1.3 - PLAN GOALS AND OBJECTIVES transportation planning 0— Direction on Economic Development: updated policies and Continue to be the "City of Choice"for new and existing businesses by focusing on quality development standards that promote and 0– design standards sustain economic growth while providing sufficient infrastructure and services. Roadway Function: Improve Enhance the function and appearance of transportation corridors bottlenecks in the while accommodating safe pedestrian and bicycle travel where feasible. .-. city Adapting to Change: Adopt development codes to reflect transportation innovations, Preserve right- evolving technology, and changing consumer preferences. � of-way for full Mobility: network build-out Develop transportation options between neighborhoods and local destinations. Mixed Use: Plan for collectors and Encourage mixed-use development in locations that are compatible = = improved connectivity with the surrounding area and supported by employment and requirements transportation infrastructure. FIGURE 1.4 - ULTIMATE ROADWAY PLAN ULTIMATE ROADWAY PLAN \ 130 \ fe 9 2023 DRAFT Bto 3s o ° Fqd - - esungnoo F C%nnC B ttO _ G teravrs �o c P^enatH " P+ Y ers"+Bt d��"`�1"�rA q tva 9 I .• 9�s eGr. � Uri 1� Q4O9�£ a PyeryN. 6 Limner l,wp GR t� I .• ll3 1431 1aY a%4n CR 122 -OUt.N �a\eY Oa CR 117 Old Settlers Blvd. 4 r`" a9los No 0 o m ' f r a o n / '• f y Sam U Old Settlers @ass Rd "11 E c I • Tiger Tra,l V Y an Or. �3' i gyp. o BoWm c \ \NartY Man B .�U In m ; in 79 Star R nch n �� Glee, �\o f 9r q J� Js @r,ghtwater @Ivtl. 0 � tf. o •. . ' a'a Mam S� UPBaO m CForest reek Dr. S A ` M -4'�_ .'.h• aancb 0tvd. Arter%a%C plery v Qa. Gattis school Rd.� 0 Q' �. Priem Ln. c LyµeGoe gvd ' 4 ,9 gn�e1 +y o 130 p t Rowe Ln. N 1m �cg� p' 45 D Q� aroma' � � Se r DRAFT SU B M I TTAL 08/09/23 Executive - - icons Collector Roadway • - - • • - System Summary = • - • -. .Introduction. Collector streets serve as the means for distributing local traffic onto the arterial system, The executive summary includes the key as defined in the Ultimate Roadway Plan. Without recommendations from the 2023 Transportation adequate collector connectivity, additional Master Plan in a concise format for ease of use. strain is induced on the arterial system due to Detailed recommendations and action items for this longer trips and more circuitous routes. The TMP plan are included in Chapter 6 of this document. includes recommendations on requirements for collector connectivity to the arterial system to ensure orderly traffic flow and to reduce strain on the arterial system. In addition, areas have Ultimate Roadway been defined in Greater Round Rock where there is a lack of collector connectivity for use in Plan: Arterial Syste0 evaluating potential projects to relieve the arterial system based on travel demand modeling. These recommendations are intended to be used to A primary component of the Transportation Master implement changes in the City Code and Design Plan is the Ultimate Roadway Plan, which serves and Construction Standards (DACS) after plan as the City's plan for future roadway capacity adoption. to serve Round Rock when it is fully built out in the City limits and Greater Round Rock. The The Transportation • " • • primary purpose of the Ultimate Roadway Plan significant investment in transportation, is to be a right-of-way preservation tool and a nearly $2 Billionprojects identified to be guide for capacity enhancements in the City to able to serve GreaterRound Pock at build-out. adequately serve anticipated future land use. This Growth needs, additional c• • • city, funding was developed in concert with the latest future opportunities, adjacent development, • • land use plan at the time of the study and latest roadway improvementscan priorities on information from surrounding Cities, Counties, these corridorsover as " TMP and TxDOT. Figure 1-4 illustrates the Ultimate identifiesvalueprojects thatprovide Roadway Plan. necessary infrastructure to continue to support Growth.the City's . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . /// 8 1 Introduction&Executive Summary DRAFT SUBMITTAL 08/09/23 Project U =- Develo ment funding programs, such as the Safe Streets for P All (SS4A) grant program and the Highway Safety High Priority projects for Roadways, Improvement Program (HSI P). This document is included in the Appendix to the Report. Intersections, and Trails The City of Round Rock has made significant Corridor Study Focus Areas investments in transportation in the past several The Sam Bass and McNeil corridors were identified years, focusing on development of roadway as unique corridors in the City where right-of-way capacity enhancements, street rehabilitations, is constrained and additional detail was needed to trail extensions, safety enhancements, transit determine concepts and projects to address needs systems, and intersection improvement projects. on these corridors. Analysis and targeted public The high priority projects are anticipated to be engagement was conducted for both of these the projects that are implemented in the next corridors, including neighborhood associations 10-15 years, but are not listed in any particular and HOAs to develop solutions to improve order. These projects were identified in the TMP roadway function, consistent with Round Rock target areas for improving congestion, safety, and 2030 policies. Recommendations are summarized connectivity. The Appendix includes additional in the body of the Transportation Master Plan safety specific projects in a Safety Action Plan that report and full detailed corridor study documents were evaluated. are included in the Appendix documenting the process to evaluate each corridor. Safety Action Plan A Safety Action Plan was developed to help address Street Design o high crash rate and high injury locations in the ° Q city with specific projects to implement safety Standards countermeasures. The projects identified in the safety action plan are intended to define a set of The Transportation Master Plan includes projects to address areas where the most severe recommendations on the right-of-way required crashes are occurring in the City. This document for infrastructure for multiple modes of travel as was developed in line with federal requirements well as standardized cross sections for different and can serve as a standalone document to contexts. Included in Figure E.1 and E.2 are position the City to take advantage of federal examples of different contextual street standards Round Rock Transportation Master Plan Introduction&Executive Summary 1 9 �� nRAFT SUBMITTAL 08/09/23 to match the context of adjacent land uses, with one being a more typical suburban arterial and the other for a higher density mixed use land use with building faces at the right-of-way line with no setbacks or easements. Recommendations related to suburban cross sections are intended to consolidate and simplify the required local, collector, and arterial street sections and be updated in the City's Design and Construction Standards (DACS) for a consistent application of requirements for development. These right-of-way requirements are documented in the Ultimate Roadway Plan by facility type as well in Figure E.1. Recommendations for the urban cross sections with higher density mixed-use development as represented in Figure E.2 are intended to align with the Mixed Use Greenfield and Large Lot District (MU-G) zoning district allowed for in City Code. These cross sections were developed based on best practices for urban design and coordinated with multiple City departments to coordinate needs for utilities, streetscape amenities, landscaping, parking, and transportation needs within the right-of-way. These recommendations are also intended to be used to develop updated design criteria in the DACS. FIGUP • • • • '20 ROW F 41' {1' r r 2B 13 5' 13.5* 7' 10 SHARF0 LANA NC M.6- IA - .IURM -ATH SCAK dh Leh Tum PmA.Ls SCAPF PATI• n n r d P-k-;r{..R.hrr /� a+VY t+Vy ' �j`I� qUl t t p.^ 7., 50•'. 2.50 n 2y; 2- _ FIGURE E.2 URBAN COLLECTOR THREE-LANE WITH PARALLEL PARKING AND FURNITURE ZONE • • • i i i 1 nnuuum '" !�'i ��ee�• i 1 10' 10 6' 8' 10' 12' 10' 8' 6' 10' 10' FURNITURE/ SUP PLANT PARK THRU TWLTL THRU PARK PLANT SUP FURNITURE/ CAFE CAFE 48'F/F /i/ 1 I Introduction&Executive Summary Chapter l State of the City 0 Round Rock Transportation Master Plan DRAFT SU_RM_LTTAI,,_08 023 2023 Existing Conditions Overview Existing Roadway Network The City of Round Rock is served by three highway The following graphic in Figure 1.1 illustrates the facilities with controlled access, including trend of population growth in Round Rock since Interstate 35 and SH 130 in the North-South 1920 and the projected growth through 2040. direction and SH 45 in the east-west direction in the southern part of the City. The arterial network is mostly complete in the developed areas of the City but is still developing in the eastern area of POUND POD DEVELOPMENT Greater Round Rock. Additionally, there are several SEPVICES DEPAPTMENT roadways that are not yet built to the number of lanes in the Ultimate Roadway Plan. The existing 300,000 266,051 roadway network is shown on the following page in 250'000 228,93.•.•• Exhibit 1. 200,000 178.704 . •194,151 150,000 •• Population Growth 100,000 ... 161136 99,887 119,468 67,136 The City of Round Rock is continuing the trend of 50,000 30,923 growing at a steady pace of 2-3% annually, resulting 250 450 800 1,29) 1,438 1,133 1,000 900 1,173 1,247 1,438 1,8% 2,811 12,740 in population growth of 2,000 to 5,000 people 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 per year. Approximately 1/3 of the population live m s N N in Greater Round Rock. While the transportation 1.uncl Rock Population(Census) network is meant to serve the City's residents, ....... Round Rock Projections(2020 Projections) many people drive to Round Rock as aestination ....... Greater Round Rock Projections(2010 Projections) and through it to other areas in the region. /// 12 1 Chapter 1:state of the City DRAFT SUBMITTAL 08/09/23 EXHIBIT 1 : EXISTING ROADWAY NETWORK Number 175 Leand 109 1460 110 1431 175 gum 79 Cedar Park """' At• .� '� i� r �►�►�,f • '� � � gra�> ��11 , nn _ 174 { 1 • i- �v ,'rte►` •� � g Palm�a\\ed' 1+� �� �+{�N1�i ►���.,� ���� � � YV Forest Creek B r�y Creek �'!% ��/ • � • ��S�e��`� I,•,�%� � �Round;Rock eek Avay flinr.h ^ i �� Austin �� �r �►4 130� A ugerville Pound Pock Transportation Master Plan Chapterl:State of the City 1 13 McNeil DRAFT Si_!_RMITTA,I08 09 2 Existing Congestion Levels FIGURE 1.2 - EXISTING ROADWAY NETWORK LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) Figure 1.2 illustrates the performance of existing Level of Service roadways in Round Rock —Low Congestion Near Capacity as of Fall 2022 traffic data -over Capacity relative to the capacity of existing roadways in the City. It should be noted that this may not reflect 1 fluctuations in peak hours of congestion but is more a measure of adequate r throughput on roadways in the City. Green roadways represent those J with lower congestion ° or roughly adequate Low Congestion capacity, yellow roadways as those nearing capacity, and red roadways as those that are deficient in capacity and likely Near Capadty need expansion to serve demand. ,p Over Capacity Note: The existing Level of Service may not perfectly reflect reality observed in the travel demand model, as it is calibrated within a tolerance of existing traffic volume data counted in 2022. /// 14 1 Chapter l:State of the City DRAFT SUBMITTAL 08/09/23 Crash History Crash data was evaluated FIGUIRE 1.3 - CPASH • - • 2021) from 2017 through r 2021 (2022 data was incomplete) and compiled to create a heat map in Figure 1.3. Crashes were clustered along major intersections and on x corridors like US 79, SH 45, x Gattis School Road, Old Settlers' Blvd, AW Grimes, and Sunrise Blvd. It should x be noted that a large hot spot on the map along University east of 1-35 was likely influenced by x construction during the crash reporting period. x f, xx '~ nx '1 l x x � J Pflugerville Round Rock Transportation Master Plan Chapter l:State of the City 1 15 �� DRo.FT I�URMITTAI Existing Trail System Several trails exist within POUND POCK TPAIL PLAN parks, along creeks, and in some locations along Y--' ' et '� roadways like along STATUS 2z,3 Kenney Fort Blvd south of EXISTING US 79. The Transportation PROPOSED Department has been Parks working in recent years to incorporate shared I]5 use paths with roadway \; projects to help tie the Lean d , 109._._.- .. ..\ < . 1/60 �f;rte 110 trails network together ,,,, , with connections along roadways. Working3 1 ' o together, the trails and ° '' 15 <-7 Q shared use paths create a F "' walkable and bikeable City. Cedar Park The Brushy Creek Regional - rc Trail also connects to other communities to the west IS or of Round Rock like Cedar Austin /, Park for regional bike and \, --� 46 pedestrian travel. Gaps ,5 d5 in this trail were actively 620 . .5 \ ,>o being constructed and UMVIlle designed at the time of study development. "- Figure 1.4 to the right - - - displays the City's existing Trail Plan. /// 16 1 Chapter 1:State of the City DRAFT SUBMITTAL 08/09/23 RelationshipPast Plans The Transportation Master Plan (TMP) is a • document that guides future connectivity and capacity expansions of the City's transportation 2022 Transit Development Plan system. The City has identified a need to update the plan based on changes in the City of Round Rock since it was last adopted in 2017. This document provides a review of the past 2021 Design & Construction plans reviewed in this task in order to gain an understanding of what current plans inform the Standards future of the City of Round Rock's transportation 2020 network. The plans reviewed in this document Round Rock 2030 include the documents outlined in Figure I.S. Comprehensive Plan 2019 Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 2045 Regional Thoroughfare Plan 2019 Trails Master Plan Update 2018 Roadway Impact Fee Program 2017 Transportation Master Plan Round Rock Transportation Master Plan hapter 1:State of the City 1 17 1\ DRAFT SUBMITTAL 08/09/23 2017 Round Rock Transportation Master Plan The most recent Round Rock Transportation Master In 2012, Round Rock's Thoroughfare Plan was Plan (TMP) was adopted in 2017. The first stand- updated but not adopted. Due to this, the 2017 alone TMP for Round Rock was developed in 1999 TMP emphasized the development of the City's and updated in 2004. In 2016, the City recognized Ultimate Roadway Plan seen in Figure 1.6 on page the need to update the 2004 TMP due to the 28. continuous growth leading to the development of the 2017 TMP Update. The 2017 plan defines goals The 2017 TMP also developed new street types and and policies for the City to adequately prepare for cross sections to emphasize the importance of growth and mobilities needs of the community. corresponding vehicular mobility with pedestrian, These goals included: bicycle, and transit modes of transportation within public right-of-way. These cross sections include: Ensure citizens of Round Rock are afforded Six-Lane Arterial with Off-Street Shared an adequate future transportation system Paths Ensure efficient utilization of the 1997 Four-Lane Arterial with Off-Street Shared half cent sales tax dedicated to roadway Paths improvements Three-Lane Collector with Shared Paths and Identify major deficiencies in the existing Parking transportation network Maintain the quality of life enjoyed by the Two-Lane Local Street with Parking citizens of Round Rock Cross sections from the 2017 were used in the Identify and plan for future connectivity and updated Design and Construction Standards mobility needs adopted in 2021. Foster transportation systems that support the development of major density centers Develop funding source mechanisms for mobility and connectivity construction and maintenance /// 18 1 Chapter l:State of the City DRAFT SUBMITTAL 08/09/23 Other focal points of this plan include four given criteria of safety and mobility (4S%), the implementation of intersection safety connectivity (2S%), environment (lS%), and cost improvements and multimodal improvements. (1S%). Projects in this plan were chosen based on FIGUIRE 1.6 2017 TMP ULTIMATE POADWAY NETWOPK ` 1 I 12000 �� rl r�.ey�M•r 1 p�, .e-I.wr Tri.. _ Ial it IYa�ia�rr 'f . r � r1 Round Rock Transportation Master Plan Chapter l:State of the City 1 19 1� DRAFT' IHBMITTALORhC)h' Transportation Design • SIDEWALK AND COLLECTOP/APTEPIAL POADS WITH & Construction SHAPED-US Standards Loca 52 ROW G 79 � I Round Rock's current version of the City's '°" z .• s' es ta• es' s <' Design and Construction Standards (DACS) was WALK PA ebO 0 PAPoMG WAK adopted by City Council on January 28, 2021. All construction activities with the City of Round Rock are required to meet these standards. According Three-Lane Collector to these standards, all streets in the city should °"4i be properly planned to integrate with the existing 53'FF r e 1I ,e'and proposed system from the following plans: LAND PARALLEL ARALLEL LAIC, "'MID SCPE PARKING PARKNG SCAPE PATHNAH A1 , • Transportation Master Plan • Comprehensive Parks, Recreation and Open Four-Lane Arterial Space Master Plan 120ROW I 5� 41 41' • Downtown Master Plan 7. 7 10. T 115• 115' 2B' 13.5' 13.57' 10' 7 ED LANG M"_ LAND- RED PAIN WN1 LM Tum PoG.b PATH Figure 1.7 to the right displays a sample of the nv 0 street sections found in the DACS. % 2% z • ' 7�% �% Six-Lane Arterial 150'ROW G 75' 75' 75'F-F i 3e'F-F 1 11' 13ff 2e' 135' 11' 17 7' Ur e• HARE LAND. Nkn.n LAND-SIURFD PATH rNK Leh Tum Pod SOAP PATH bb b .n„Pe b.'n R.,40 4 4 Q ,% zx 2.50% 2'50% ' 7.50% 2_50% 2% 1% i /// 0 Chapter l:State of the City DPA08/09/23 Round Rock 2030 Comprehensive Plan Pound PockcomprehensiveRound Rock 2030 Roadway Function havingplan for City of Pound Pock, adopted in 2020. • _s a • " nalysis of Implementation Strategies: overviewthe city's land use, including an oEstablish streetscape design guidelines for city lan• use patterns, • use, and criteria forfuture roadways to ensure compatibility with current and planned land uses. development. - • in the plan are the twelve policies that will guide • - • Encourage attractive xeriscaping and design of projects. Of policies, two wereelements in medians and high traffic areas. largely focused on transportation in Pound Pock • .dway Function & Mobility. Consider pedestrian safety improvements at intersections, including but not limited to the creation of safer and more obvious places to cross arterials and better signage/visibility to ensure drivers are aware Round Pockof pedestrian activity. Function • Pursue the feasibility of a comprehensive street tree program and identify priority areas for implementing "Enhance • • • appearance • such a program. transportation • • • accommodating • Explore options for park-and-ride lots and rideshare • - pedestrian • • bicycle travel - feasible."This policy parking. prioritizes ' ' ' ' connecting Adopt standards for shared-use paths that are at least infrastructurefor all • of • • • - • ten feet wide and can be utilized by both cyclists and on public input - • pedestrian safety an• pedestrians. walkability were major • • - • with roadway design. addition t• function, policy also focuses on the appearance of transportation Design single-loaded streets to provide access to open spaces where possible. corridorswhich are especiallyimportant ' Consider chicanes or other traffic calming measures gateway c• • • • - people • theon roadways where the city receives frequent city. complaints about speeding. Poadway Function • - • - • - Consider and prioritize corridor studies to determine included Pound • • • future corridor enhancement programs for roadways. ��• • •: •• • • • • • Round Rock 2030 Mobility Implementation Strategies: • • • Increase neighborhood connectivity of streets, trails, and bike lanes. Use subdivision platting and site development processes to ensure connectivity _ _ • • • •• • • for a variety of transportation options. Examples of requirements include cross • • • • • • - access between commercial uses, sidewalk construction, and connectivity indicators in new residential development. • - • • Consider pedestrian safety improvements at intersections, including but not limited to the creation of safer and more obvious places to cross arterials and • • •• • • - better signage/visibility to ensure drivers are aware of pedestrian activity. Assess mobility needs for underserved populationsfrom a land use perspective. • • •. • - • - - • • • Facilitate expanded fixed-route bus service including the addition of a transit • _ • • stop in The District mixed-use development proposed south of SH-4S and west of Greenlawn Blvd. ' • • • -• Evaluate parking demand to determine whether a park and ride location •-• • - • • - • - or expansion of the Transit Center downtown garage is appropriate to • • • •• • • • accommodate commuters. • - •' • - • Ensure the connectivity of neighborhoods to the trail system identified in • - - • • - • Playbook 2030: Building a Connected Community. Ensure mobility to and around regional attractions identified on the Future • • • • • •' • • Land Use Map (FLUM). • • • • • • •• .• • Evaluate the MoKan corridor (from Georgetown to Austin) as a regional _• • _ • transportation and transit mobility solution. • - • - • Evaluate potential impacts of bike share and micromobility options to balance community needs and city policy preferences. - • - . • • • _ • • • • Develop transit stop infrastructure and amenities including shade structures, ' •. • benches, and trash receptacles. • - •• • •. • - Develop a plan to manage parking supply and demand in large developments to ensure the efficient use of land. Reevaluate off-street parking requirements for all land uses. Assess connectivity to downtown from surrounding areas for all modes of transportation. DRAFT SUBMITTAL 08/09/23 2022 Transit Development Plan Round Rock has been planning for transit for over FIGURE 1.8 RECOMMENDEDPLAN ten years, most recently completing a Transit Development Plan (TDP) in 2022. The goal of this TDP is to make public transportation a viable ' ' mobility option for residents of Round Rock and ..-•- the surrounding areas. With the development of this plan, the City aspired to make transit services more attractive and efficient to residents and y visitors, as well as using transit to accommodate the growth of the Round Rock. This plan aims to ��` - boost transit services and to support the City's Y'` v transportation goals such as improved mobility, 1 creating desirable destinations, and increased Rock connectivity. 79 � The TDP process involved assessments of Round Rock's transit demand and needs. The plan identifies the areas in the City that experience ® ! i:N I r.S u.hfJl III l' the highest demand for transit to be present and use that data to determine the most effective route and service types. The TDP lays out four aJ transit centered visions for the City; Enhanced, Ambitious, Aspirational, and On-Demand. Each , �� North Round Rock vision is displayed on maps that show different transit scenarios. `N,_, Tech Ridge Express Route 980 The Round Rock TDP ultimately recommends three fixed-route services as well as a weekday and Round Rock On Demand Saturday microtransit service that can be used on-demand b the City's residents using an a Complementary y y g app TO TECH or phone call. A map of the final recommended RIDGE ADA Paratransit transit network is shown in Figure 1.5. Service Area Round Rock Transportation Master Plan Chapter l:State of the City 1 23 �� f)RAFT 1,;P R M ITTQ L 08109/?' 2018 Roadway Impact Fee An estimated $1.2 billion in new These projects are only a few of the dozens identified in the infrastructure is needed to Impact Fee Study that seek to accommodate the growing accommodate Greater Round infrastructural needs as Round Rock continues to grow. Rock's population of approximately, Figure 1.9 below displays the 2018 Roadway Impact Fee map. 300,000 people based on the 2018 Roadway Impact Fee study. Impact fees help address the need for ' ' ROADWAY increased capacity on arterial and collector roadways that serve the overall transportation system as Legend Round Rock continues to grow but • Signal Streets is a funding tool limited to the City Roundabout.__ New / Ii m its. • Turn Lanes � Widening Bridge -Access Management Since the adoption of the impact Other Previously Constructed _ fee, several Capital Improvements Projects identified in the roadway impact fee study have been started B ' or completed with the help of the roadway impact fees including: c�lr A University Boulevard Widening - In progress , E l ' N Mays St and Universityi Blvd Intersection r C improvements - In progress a ti Sunrise Rd and University Blvd Intersection •� improvements - In progress N Mays Street to Paloma Dr, new segment - Complete /// 24 1 Chapter l:State of the City nRAFT c,I JR, A.•iTTnl nR!09 23 Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) 2045 Regional Thoroughfare Plan In 2020, the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Kenney Fort Boulevard new segment and Organization (CAMPO) adopted their Regional widening Transportation Plan (RTP) which is displayed in Old Settlers Boulevard new segment Figure 1.10. This plan is a multimodal approach to addressing congestion and transportation needs Other corridor and transit improvements over the next 25 years and uses local stakehlder According to the RTP, Round Rock is one of the outreach in development to ensure the regional largest activity centers in the metropolitan area nature of the plan is locally driven. with its' rapidly growing suburban development The vision statement of the RTP is to coordinate and active commercial sector. As the region regional infrastructure and operations investments continues to grow, Round Rock will continue to for better safety, connectivity, personal mobility, benefit from the increased connectivity, reliability, and access that balances economic growth, safety, innovation, and economic development of stewardship of scarce resources and regional the transportation network. competitiveness. The RTP is comprised of roadway, active transportation, and transit projects coming FIGUIRE 1.10 . . 2045 PTP POADWAY PIROJECTS from analyses conducted on region-wide active transportation, safety, transit, congestion, and also specific areas of interest including the MoKan/ '�""� ,s,, • Northeast subregion, Williams Dr in Georgetown, and the City of Luling, TX. Included among the list of projects featured in this document are several ones specific to Round Rock mentioned in the 2017 TMP including: Y. University Boulevard widening anddw improvements Gattis School Road widening and improvements Round Rock Transportation Master Plan Chapter l:State of the City 1 25 �__ nnn FT CI, I�-NJ1 AI 0�atQ9h3 2009 Trails Master Plan In June of 2009, Round Rock City Council adopted The remaining trails evaluated in this plan include: Game Plan 2020. Building an Active Community, Chandler Branch Corridor the City's Parks and Recreation Master Plan. The Parks and Recreation Master Plan for the City was Kensington Park Corridor updated and adopted in 2018, and as a result, the then existing trails evaluation from Game Plan Northeast Corridor 2020 was adopted by City Council as Round Rock's Northwest Corridor Trail Master Plan. The Trails Master Plan provides a thorough Southeast Corridor evaluation of all trails in Round Rock to enhance Southwest Corridor the following: Mobility and Connectivity • " ■ • ' FIROM Recreation and Culture MASTEP PLAN Community and Character ' k•_ Natural Resources and Environment 9 High Value Governance ,•, - ' � The Trails Master Plan breakdown down each trail . J> corridors into segments to provide a detailed view of existing and future trail locations as well as amenities such as bridges, underpasses, and trailheads. Figure 1.11 is an example of one of the {: segment maps for the Brushy Creek Trail Corridor. BRUSHY CREEK CORRIDOR f. C 3 /// 26 1 Chapter l:state of the City Ch Pter 2 Public Involvement O Round Rock Transportation Master Plan OPAFT SUBMITTAL 09199[23 Public InvolvementOev rview A Public Involvement Plan was developed at the Figure 2.1) and online engagement was pushed beginning of the TMP development process and out through social media, advertising, and several included a hybrid approach strategy targeting media stories, including one by KXAN on TV and both in-person events and virtual engagement. digital media As has been the trend in recent years, the grand majority of engagement is coming through online POP-UP EVENT AT THE PUBLIC : - • • activity instead of in-person activity. During the plan, a website was developed for the project with engagement for the following phases of plan development both online and in-person: r i Phase 1 - Needs Assessment Timeline Mobility Survey and Community Needs - coincides with Public Meeting #1 at the Baca Center & pop- t` up event at Music on Main Phase 2 - Corridor Studies This included visits to neighborhood associations and community events with the Round Rock West and Chisholm Valley Neighborhoods as well as a combined neighborhood event for clean-up services along Sam Bass Road Phase 3 - Recommendations Cob Gine A pop-up event was held on a Saturday in May weWa^tto45yovr at the new Round Rock Public Library (shown in pira�"^e°aspe�Spput! . Sparta, �SeR,. t�eSa.. /// 28 1 Chapter 2:Public Involvement DRAFT SUBMITTAL 08/09/23 • • Agency Coord nation The Transportation Department and the project External Coordination team made a concerted effort to coordinate with internal departments at the City of Round Rock as well as external partners and agencies. Internal Partners coordination primarily focused on coordination on design standards, cross sections, and strategies for TxDOT incorporating trails, transit and safety into project City of Cedar Park development and as groundwork for updating the Design and Construction Standards and City Code. City of Georgetown For external agencies, coordination primarily City of Hutto focused on active projects by other agencies, upcoming initiatives or studies, and funding City of Pflugerville o-pportunitiesfor partnership. Internal and external City of Austin partners included the following: Williamson County Internal Coordination CAMPO Partners TM '00-F'-4Us' Planning and Development Services Texas Fire Department Department of Transportation Police Department WParks and Recreation Department C^MPO CRVITGL AREA V WILLIAMsoN PLRNNINGOYGANIZGTIONUtilities Department COUNTY 1848 Round Pock Transportation Master Plan Chapter 2:Public Involvement 1 29 '$- DRAFT SU13MITTAL_08/09/23 Mobility The public engagement platform Social Pinpoint FIGURE 2.2 MOBILITYRESPONSES was a vital tool utilized throughout all phases of public engagement. Social Pinpoint allows for the please rank the following categories based on what you feel should be creation of online public engagement tools and a priority for the City of Round Rock. catalogs the results from these activities allowing for efficient data analysis. There were two phases Traffic Flow of public engagement during the process: the citywide mobility surveys and the corridor studies. Safety Connectivity Trails Fail 2022 Mobility Maintenance Survey Addressing Growth Pedestrians In fall of 2022, a public meeting and online engagement period occurred which allowed for Large Projects input from the community on mobility priorities and existing needs through the use of the Downtown interactive map. In addition, the community was Small but Quick - abletogivefeedbackon mobility priorities through a priority pyramid exercise. Figure 2.2 displays the Character _ responses to one of the questions posed in the mobility surveys. Wayfinding - 0 2.5 5 7.5 10 Average ranked score from all responses /ij 0 i Chapter 2:Public Involvement DRAFT SUBMITTAL 08/09/23 Spring 2023 Recommendations Survey In May 2023 the Social Pinpoint FIGUIRE 2.3 MAP COMMENT • • • • M SPIRING 2023MOBILITY website launched several activities for feedback on recommendations for the Transportation Master Plan, - including-. - Interactive map for high priority awsta _ roadway and trail projects �. BID B A survey for recommendations Lakeside Meadow sertl• related to the draft Ultimate Roadway Plan, high priority _ intersection improvements, and safety recommendations, and corridor studies. The Q results of the interactive map activity are displayed in Figure 2.3. Feedback was -_ incorporated into the final QQ Q recommendations of this _ document. To review the community input from this survey, please see the Appendix. Round Rock Transportation Master Plan Chapter 2:Public Involvement 1 31 �� DRAFT SH9MITTA I 09109123 Corridor Studies and Neighborhood Outreach The second phase of public engagement consistedSURVEY of a map survey and a written survey similar to the first phase. The difference being these "Overall how o SAM BASS RD Q N surveys were scaled down to the corridors of Sam would you o Bass Rd and McNeil Rd. The map survey, hosted rate TRAFFIC Z N through Social Pinpoint, allowed participants CONGESTION o 1% LU to place comments on a map where they could today along w o see potential improvement or provide feedback the following > o on proposed projects. The written surveys for road?... g Z the corridors asked participants about their MCNEIL RD 2% levels of support for various proposed safety and FIGURE 2.S - QUESTION 5 SURVEY RESULTS traffic improvements. In addition to the surveys, SAM BASS RD neighborhood meetings were held for residents and stakeholders who lived or operated along the "Overall, how Q LL LU would you z Q corridors. Z rate TRAFFIC In total, there were 117 comments on the map SAFETY along Er I survey and 295 on the written surveys. In the the following > Ln written surveys, approximately2/3rds of the public road?..." were in support of the proposed recommendations MCNEIL RD 4% with half agreement and half strong agreement. FIGURE 2.6 - SUMMARY RESULTS • . ALL RECOMMENDED Figures 2.4 - 2.6 to the right show summary IMPROVEMENTS results from the written surveys and Exhibit 2 shows a heat map of comments received on the corridor study areas. "Please rate your opinion of the proposed improvements:" 36% Strongly in Favor N In Favor E Neutral opposed M Strongly opposed /// 32 1 Chapter 2:Public Involvement EXHIBIT 2: PUBLIC Source: Social Pinpoint Map Survey Comments r r�2 Legend - , Fewer Comments _. More Comments _ Round Rock City Limits Greater �'� • Round Rock 1Jt 4 V i Round Rock Transportation Master Plan Chapter 2:Public Involvement 1 33 �� Chapter 3 Updating the Ultimate Roadway Network O Round Rock Transportation Master Plan F)PAFT SUBMITTAL 08/09/23 The Ultimate Roadway Network is the plan to serve capacity improvements at a regional scale and is growth when Greater Round Rock is built-out. This the modeling standard for the region. includes determining the appropriate functional classification and associated right-of-way required The City's model for this process replaced the to serve vehicular traffic and is based on the future land use and transportation network within the land use plan for undeveloped or redeveloping City and Greater Round Rock with the proposed areas. Travel Demand modeling is the tool used transportation networksand more refined land uses to evaluate future transportation demand and to align with other City efforts like the Round Rock congestion based on the projected number of 2030 Plan. Input was obtained from surrounding employees and households in discrete areas of cities, but their network and demographic data the City. This is an iterative process of evaluating are not updated from what exists in the CAMPO different transportation network solutions and 2045 approved model.. land use scenarios to determine if the network is Several different scenarios were developed and adequate. assessed in the TMP, including developing a base year model (2022) that was calibrated based Travel Demand on traffic counts taken in Fall 2022 as well as a future year model (build-out within City and M od elinJ COUNTIES Travel Demand Modeling is a tool that is used to assess roadway capacity performance based on project land use and growth to help improve the Ultimate Roadway Plan. The Travel Demand Round Rock Model used for assessment of performance of the Ultimate Roadway plan was based on the 2045 Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) model. The CAMPO model includes highways and significant roadway connections for the entire 6 county region (shown in Figure 3.1) within the MPO and is used for assessing roadway Transportation Master Plan ch,iptethe Roadway Network 1 35 ��� DRAFT St JRM_ITTAL08 09 2- Greater Round Rock, 2045 for the rest of CAMPO behavior and route choice. These volumes are region) based on the Ultimate Roadway Plan compared with the capacity to develop a "Level of and latest Future Land Use Plan for the City for Service" for each roadway. See the Chart in Table 3.1 undeveloped parcels. A screenshot from the illustrating what breakpoints exist for letter grades model is displayed in Figure 3.2. in Level of Service for the various model outputs. Level of Service A-C is generally considered good The outputs from the travel demand models traffic flow, LOS D is considered to be increasing include the projected volumes based on where congestion, and LOS E/F is considered to be a failing people drive to and from and anticipated driving LOS. 7 ABLE 3.1 - LEVEL OF • • • . CAPACITY 6 Lane 150' ROW <39,000 39,000 48,000 60,000 4 Lane 120' ROW <26,000 26,000 32,000 40,000 2 Lane 90' ROW <10,000 10,000 12,200 15,250 Frontage 3 Lane <19,500 19,500 24,000 30,000 Frontage 2 Lane <13,000 13,000 16,000 20,000 Frontage 1 Lane <6,500 6,500 8,000 10,000 3 Lane (Sam Bass) <11,200 11,200 13,800 17,250 MODELScenarios studied and represented in this study are documented on the following pages and - _ were based on either the base year or future year models. Scenarios studied help refine the Ultimate Roadway Plan map and test if projects recommended for the roadway impact fee CIP study were adequate to serve an interim 10-year - - condition. In addition, a sensitivity analysis was ' Mpr IbJ C31 conducted to determine the degree of congestion if the residential future land uses continue to have increased density per recent trends. ///36 1 Chapter 3:Updating the Roadway Network DRAFT SUBMITTAL 08/09/23 - EXHIBIT 3 : FUTUPE LEVEL OF Level of Service A eto"" r - Low Congestion Near Capacity — Over Capacity a 11 / � I r Leand G' p@ 109 laso no 1431 113 , i - 175 �• -.,�.� 79 79 Hutto Cedar Park 174 j� sss i 620 �Cob i l 1� Vii" � •� "—_. .. __ - // Austin 45 45 45 szo as /� 17. u flugerville Exhibit 3 illustrates the results for the baseline the Ultimate Roadway Plan and included several future year model (reflecting 2017 Ultimate iterations to arrive at the final plan map shown Roadway Plan and current Future Land Use in this document in Chapter S. Map). The future year model was used to refine Round Rock Transportation Master Plan Chapter 3:Updating the Roadway Network 1 37 $N D PA FT_SU R M I TTA L._Q8rn9/23 Some observations from the Ultimate Roadway Figure3.3 illustratesvaryingdegrees ofconnectivity Network future year model is that even with and how this has changed over time, with significant investment to build out the arterial neighborhood design becoming increasingly less system, there are still some congested corridors connected and offering fewer alternative routes. with increased congestion or failing Level of By establishing a well connected collector system, Service. This is predominantly observed on east- relief may be provided to arterials. Alternatively, west corridors like US 79/Palm Valley, University some facilities may need to be considered for Blvd, Old Settler's Road, and Gattis School Road. more significant capacity enhancements, such as Some north-south corridors also have pockets of innovative intersections, grade separations, and poorer performance, but are not as severe. upgrading to access controlled facilities, if feasible. One solution to improve arterial performance, Exhibit 4 illustrates where additional North- especially in areas that are less built-out on the South, East-West, or bi-directional (represented periphery of the City, is to have a robust collector by "BOTH") collector capacity is needed based on street network to relieve arterials. Collectors best modeling results, and should be prioritized in the function when they completely connect from one future for relieving anticipated arterial congestion major thoroughfare to another without reducing with the proposed Ultimate Roadway Plan in this in width or capacity and act as a distributor of local document. traffic to the arterial system to avoid unnecessary trips on the arterial system. .O I 1 Conventional Grid Curvilinear Loop Pattern & Conventional Pattern (c 1900) Beginning of Cul-de-Sacs (1930-1950) Cul-de-Sac Pattern (since 1950) ///38 1 Chapter 3:Updating the Roadway Network DPAFT SUBMITLAL •: •• 23 EXHIBIT M %DIRECTIONAL COLLECTOR CAPACITY Collector _ � ; TH EW NS Teravista Gotf Club Southwest • d' Regio110 nal Park N and Preserves v Silverado ® � m • l\� Springs Park a w 79 Huu� 1 1, • 79 174 Cedar Park � d �C fy � Forest Creek Brushy Creek �• � Golf Club P• .y� G� 620 — Round Rock ek Avery Ranch fir,�� �� Austin It Golf Club / ' 5 -m m m m •flugerville DRAFT sUBMITTAI- 0WnWh' Scenario: Higher Density Sensitivity Analysis One scenario that was developed in the north of Austin. This illustrates the need to consider if travel demand modeling was a scenario other facilities, namely US 79, is worth of consideration for to assess the impact of higher density potential future conversion to an access controlled facility development. Historically, Round Rock has and should be further studied. developed with roughly 4 units per acre for detached single family homes in typical Note that many facilities are not in the City's control, like subdivisions with houses on individual US 79, that will require coordination with outside agencies lots and 20 units per acre for apartment or for solutions. multifamily style developments. However, FIGUIRE 3.4 - HIGH DENSITY LEVEL OF SEPVICE in more recent years, development has generally increased densities for the same LOS ems" projects, resulting in densities closer —A-C to 8-10 units per acre for single family p residential and closer to 30-40+ units —E/F per acre for multifamily. The future land use density assumptions were altered in a "High Density Scenario" to assess the Lean Pk scale of impacts on transportation if this trend continues. The results are shown in Figure 3.4. AWW As shown in the Level of Service Map, Hu!0 rPark further degradation of LOS on the east- west roadways with a few instances of �.. worsening level on North-South roadways �" J occurs. This is most likely due to the „,W„ existence of multiple north-south routes 16 with access controlled facilities (1-35, SH aao 130, and 183A) that provide higher capacity flow, whereas SH 45 is the only facility of this type in Round Rock or anywhere - ///40 1 Chapter 3:Updating the Roadway Network DRAFT SUBMITTAL 08/09/23 Scenario: 10-Year Growth for Roadway Impact Fees The 10-year growth scenario OF evaluated the performance , of the anticipated roadway LOS °"" network if the projects _A_C F­Z identified as high priority in D o Chapter 6 were constructed _ E/F and growth for a 10-year w period was also observed to ? 1 2033. The results of this model are illustrated in Figure 3.5, Leander v 09 which shows the alleviation "° of congestion among many roadways, such as A Wo Grimes Blvd, Avery Nelson o Pkwy, and University Blvd, W 79 1 9 Hum,. as capacity improvements cedar Park _� � BB5 are made on the existing ° roadways and additional __. "° - - north-south and east-west connections are constructed Austin � within the proposed network. � These outputs are used to45 help refine the Roadway 620 = Impact Fee Study Capital € fi°9ervue Improvements Plan which started concurrently for a S year update during TMP development. Round Rock Transportation Master Plan Chapter 3:Updating the Roadway Network 1 41 �� • • • • - - . • - • - • McNeil Road - a corridor study in the Appendix documents • • . • • • • • • the analysis on this corridor, which has been changed from 6 lane enhanced roadway to remain a 4 lane road • • • • • • without a median as in its current state with some signal ' ' ' ' - • - • ' • • • • operational enhancements where possible. The majority of • - • - • the roadway currently lies within right-of-way owned by • - • • • - • • - • - Union Pacific Railroad and all improvements to this road- . • - • • • _ • • - • • way would require approval by UPPP. In addition, there is little to no space on the west side of the UPPP right-of-way _ for improvements up to property lines for neighborhoods like Round Rock West. Sam Bass Road - a corridor study in the Appendix FIGURE 3.6 - SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO THE 2017 documents the analysis on this corridor, which has been ULTIMATE ROADWAY PLAN changed from a 4 lane enhanced to a 3 lane enhanced roadway from the railroad near Chisholm Trail west to Old Settler's Blvd. Some significant challenges do exist for the section west of Chisholm Trail to Meadows Drive where right-of-way drops to as little as 40 feet in this area, especially next to the cemetery. ` Northeast Quadrant - Several updates to the area surrounding the intersection of University Blvd and SH 130 were made, as this area has more recently been included in Greater Round Rock and has an underdeveloped roadway network with some substandard intersection spacing. With some substantial development in this area anticipated, a revision to disconnect southbound CR 107 at its current location to be realigned to a location further west was recommended due to anticipated issues if a signal were to be needed in the future with spacing to SH 130. In addition, edits to include Ed Schmidt Blvd recently built 4 in Williamson County from CR 118 into Hutto is reflected properly, and an extension of CR 100 is no longer shown. Lastly, Revisions to the alignment of Avery Nelson Blvd / •�_ •' •_ CR 118 through Solterra are shown, which would connect •_ into existing CR 118 at the crossing under SH 130 as a 4-lane • road from CR 110 to Ed Schmidt Blvd. DRAFT SUBMITTAL 08/09/23 TABLE 3.2 - SUMMAPY OF • THE 2017POADWAY PLAN Al CR 117 CR 112 - CR 122 2 Lane - Existing Removal Removed per Staff Comments, to remain a 2 lane collector from Bluffstone to Red Bud A2 Wyoming Springs Dr FM 1431 - FM 3406 4 Lane - Proposed Removal Removed 4 Lane - Proposed per staff comments A3 Brushy Creek Rd Parmer LLn Howard 2 Lane - Existing Reclassify 2 Lane - Existing to 4 Lane - Enhanced A4 N Mays St Northwest Dr. - 4 Lane - Enhanced Reclassify Changed from 2 Lane - Existing to 4 Lane - Enhanced Palm Valley Blvd AS CR 110 Westinghouse to 6 Lane - Proposed Reclassify 4 Lane - Enhanced to 6 Lane - Proposed US 79 A6 CR 114/Chandler Rd SH 130 - CR 100 6 Lane - Proposed Reclassify 4 Lane - Enhanced to 6 Lane - Proposed A7 CR 110 CR 164 - US 79 6 Lane - Proposed Reclassify 4 Lane - Enhanced to 6 Lane - Proposed A8 N Kenney Fort Blvd CR 117 - CR 113 6 Lane - Proposed Reclassify 4 Lane - Proposed to 6 Lane - Proposed A9 McNeil Rd IH 35 - CR 172 6 Lane - Enhanced Reclassify 6 Lane - Enhanced to 4 Lane - Existing A10 TBD 84 PUD 4 Lane - Proposed Addition New roadway roughly following MoKan alignment All Vizcaya Pkwy 84 PUD 2 Lane - Proposed Addition 84 PUD Addition-Extended North per staff comments Al2 Wallin Bradley Dr 84 PUD 4 Lane - Proposed Addition 84 PUD Addition A13 Campus Village Drive 84 PUD 2 Lane - Proposed Addition 84 PUD Addition A14 Wallin Bradley Dr 84 PUD 3 Lane - Proposed Addition 84 PUD Addition-Adjusted based on comments A15 Joe Dimaggio Kenney Fort - E Palm 3 Lane - Proposed Addition 3 Lane Proposed Added per staff comments Valley Blvd A16 Double Creek Drive Palm Valley - Forest 4 Lane - Proposed Addition Added Per Staff Comments: Realigned to match up to the Luthern Creek Church driveway to the North A17 Eagles Nest St IH35 - Wyoming 4 Lane - Proposed Addition Added 4 Lane - Proposed per staff comments Springs A18 Wyoming Springs Drive FM 1431 - Eagles Nest 4 Lane - Proposed Addition Added 4 Lane Proposed per staff comments A19 Creek Bend Blvd FM 1431 - Eagles Nest 4 Lane - Proposed Addition Added 4 Lane - Proposed per staff comments A20 Avery Nelson Blvd CR 112 to CR 110 6 Lane - Proposed Realignment Realign per staff comments A21 Avery Nelson Blvd CR 110 to CR 118 4 Lane - Proposed Realignment Alignment changed based on development A22 Arterial C Deepwood Dr - 4 Lane - Proposed Realignment Moved North to Avoid Public Facilities Wyoming Springs Dr A23 E Old Settlers Blvd Arterial A - CR 122 4 Lane - Existing Reclassify 4 Lane - Existing to 6 Lane - Proposed A24 CR 122 CR 122 - CR 110 3 Lane - Enhanced Realignment Aligned 90 degree turn for low water crossing A25 Innovation Blvd Avery Nelson is n to CR 2 Lane - Proposed Addition Added per regional coordination A26 CR 107 Existing to University 4 Lane - Proposed Realignment Disconnect current intersection at University and realign as 4 lane divided further west A27 CR 118 University to Ed 4 Lane - Enhanced Reclassify Widened per staff comments Schmidt A28 Ed Schmidt Blvd Chandler Rd to 4 lane - Enhanced Realignment Adjusted CR 100 to current Ed Schmidt Alignment built by Hutto Williamson County A29 CR 108 CR 100 to Hutto 2 Lane - Proposed Addition Alignment with Hutto and Georgetown plans for additional road east of SH 130 where frontage roads are lacking Round Rock Transportation Master Plan Chapter 3:Updating the Roadway Network 1 43 '$_ Chapter 4 State of Transportation Funding O Round Rock Transportation Master Plan DRAFT SUBMITTAL 08/09/23 Funding for transportation has substantially increased in recent years at both the federal and state levels, creating opportunities for communities like Round Rock to seek outside funding for projects and programs. This chapter documents the various funding types used in the City of Round Rock today as well as trends and opportunities related to funding in the near term. Economic Development (4B The City of Round Rock has a strong history of spending on over $1.2 Billion in needs identified in supporting transportation investment and capital the 2017 Transportation Master Plan. Funding was improvements through various City funding issued in the form of Certificates of Obligation sources, including funds earmarked as Type 4B (CO) bonds beginning in 2020. funds from sales tax. Since 1997, when voters approved a half cent sales tax, funding from 4B funds have been used on transportation capital projects as well as other economic development D RIVING :.� PROGRESS spending. In 2019, an initiative called Driving Progress was initiated to allocate $240 million in Development ( RoadwayImpact Fees) Development can be a partner in getting infrastructure built to serve growth in Round Rock, and the City has chosen to quantify the impacts through development of a roadway impact fee program, initiated in 2019. A roadway impact fee study was completed and adopted with an Ordinance in March of 2019, and the City began collecting roadway impact fees in 2021. In some instances, development may construct roadways in the Impact Fee capital improvements plan in lieu of paying a roadway impact fee. These funds are tied to multiple service areas within the City and must be spent in the same general areas in which they were collected. The City has used roadway impact fee funds to pay debt incurred for various projects since collections began in 2021 to reduce the City's debt burden. Transportation Master Plan Chapter sr Ill of Transportation Funding 145 �� DRAFT SUBMITTAL 08/09/23 State Funding ( TxDOT manages and/or maintains the state transportation system, including roadways like Interstate 3S, US 79, RM 620 and other roadways with state designations. In addition to managing regional thoroughfares, TxDOT identifies funding for projects through various methods and funding categories for projects on an annual basis. The local MPO's, including the Capital Area MPO for Round Rock, put together Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs) that feed into the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program, which is approved annually and includes projects with funding for the next 4 years. Additionally, TxDOT puts together a 10 year plan called the Unified Transportation Program, which in 2023 included a historic $100 Billion in funding statewide. TxDOT is an important funding partner for potential projects for both safety and operational improvements. Lastly, TxDOT expanded its Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) with a significant funding increase in 2022 for pedestrian and bike or other alternative modes of transportation projects. FIGUPE 4.1 DOO . 2023 UTP FUNDING DISTRIBUTION BY CATEGORY Preventive Maintenance and Rehabilitation 1 Metropolitan and Urban Area Corridor Projects 2 Non-Traditionally Funded Transportation Projects 3 Statewide Connectivity Corridor Projects 4 Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement 5 $2.322,790.000 Structures Replacement and Rehabilitation(Bridge) 6 $4.178.006.000 Metropolitan Mobility and Rehabilitation 7 Safety Projects 8 Transportation Alternatives 9 Supplemental Transportation Projects 10 District Discretionary 11 Strategic Priority 12 TOTAL UTP FUNDING O• $85.064,891,753 ///46 1 Chapter 4:State of Transportation Funding DRAFT SUBMITTAL 08/09/23 Federal F The 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) funneled significant dollars towards improving surface transportation of various kinds with $1.2 Trillion nationally to fund ongoing programs as well as new programs. Much of the new funding was geared towards programs for safety, electric vehicles and charging infrastructure, and other special programs. The following highlights a few programs within the IIJA that could be applicable to Pound Rock: Safe Streets for All Highway Safety Improvement Program Carbon Reduction Plans Carbon Reduction Plans are being implemented at the MPO level, and plans for use of these proceeds are being planned for regionally by CAMPO. The funding program mirrors many characteristics of the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funding program for urbanized areas that fall in a non- attainment zone for emissions and air quality. The Austin-Pound Pock MSA has not historically been characterized as non-attainment. Round Rock Transportation Master Plan Chapter 4:State of Transportation Funding 147 '$_ DRAFT SUBMITTAL 08/09/23 FTypes Other CAMPO Bonds Round Rock has been successful at securing In addition to the Certificates of Obligation funding in the most recent call for projects in 2018 bonds (CO bonds) mentioned in the Economic by CAMPO and is implementing projects with Development and 4B funding section, cities are funding for transportation. It is recommended able to hold general elections to approve spending to continue to pursue project calls to secure that may result in an increase on property tax additional funding when appropriate in the future. rates to fund infrastructure of various kinds. These bonds are known as General Obligation (GO) bonds. The City of Round Rock has not issued GO bonds in several years and has kept tax rates lower by securing funding through other means. Other Agency Partnering with Williamson County The City of Round Rock has partnered with Williamson County in the past to fund projects from the 2019 Williamson County Bond. Partnering with Williamson County on projects, especially in Greater Round Rock, is encouraged to be pursued in future opportunities with the County. ///48 1 Chapter 4:State of Transportation Funding Chapter 5 Recommendations O Round Rock Transportation Master Plan DRAFT SUBMITTAL 08/09/23 This chapter defines the recommendations based on the analysis conducted for existing conditions, a needs assessment, public engagement received, and analysis of future conditions. A summary of actions related to these recommendations is found in Chapter 6 - Conclusions and Actions (Page 80). imate considerations for intersection design.Ata minimum, VItright-of-way shall be provided within the distance specified In Table 5.1 based on Intersecting street types in the Ultimate Roadway Plan. The additional Roadwa P I a n right-of-way shall be provided for a distance not y less than 200 feet, but shall be provided for at least the minimum distance for a single left turn The Ultimate Roadway Plan, shown in Exhibit 5 lane as defined in the latest TxDOT design criteria is the result of working with staff to determine for turn lanes based on the posted speed limit anticipated needs, discussions with property of the roadway, inclusive of the turn lane taper. owners with large parcels of land undeveloped, The ultimate roadway plan also identifies several and modeling to determine the needs of the City. intersections for potential innovative improvements In addition, coordination with TxDOT, Williamson or grade separation that merit special consideration County, and surrounding cities occurred during for development or redevelopment on the corners of plan development to align planning at jurisdictional intersections that should be coordinated with staff boundaries or where jurisdictions are shared. The based on intersection schematics or concepts. intended use of the Ultimate Roadway Plan is to help guide capital investments in facility expansions, Inany _' _where schematic '_ design ' been enhancements, and extensions of roadways while "_' right-of-way_ _ _ _ ' _ - - of th also building shared use paths where right-of-way ' allows along arterial facilities for multimodal use. Ultimate uirements " ' ' n. The Ultimate Roadway Plan includes the required right-of-way for 6 lane, 4 lane, 3 lane, and 2 lane facilities in this plan. Roadway 1 Type Additional Right-of- Collector Arterial Highway/ Tollway Way Required Roadway Collector 14' N/A 2 Type Arterial 14' 28' In addition tothe baseline right-of-way requirements in the Ultimate Roadway Plan, some locations Highway/ N/A Determined may require additional right-of-way due to special Tollway I by Schematic ///50 1 Chapter 5:Recommendations EXHIBIT 5 : ULTIMATE ROADWAY PLAN ULTIM '30 o •o � 9 o 2023 DRAFT 35d j o ` nue; P9� 1,8 o .• 1 v_ Teravisur Y C, U�rwe"` / •• t ty :o'-Ooh o gvvd. y C o Ne. Limmer Loop GR Ap9 a. / '• 1g31 o \\way wa\No Ot CR 122 F m9 Go 1 e06\" CR j j 7 Old Settlers Blvd. 1\ 6 s S\Oo E m— ld Sara Bas tj Old Serile`s 81vd. m b SRd. U c i m -. I •• *rt U +. 7iy¢r Trail rj Y D g0'Nm Q i Na,N Mar`\Aj Sa v m m d c 79 Star ganc v rnr Pd Blvd . Cb Orgew 1 sg7 o. Ur gtosb9 Brightwater Blvd. 97 v O O n p NO 5� VpPP c Forest Ma\� £O A Creek Dr. PveN Pa V Prteda\C Pa a` Gattis School Rd. 'et` Priem Ln. • • •• y c° a c ` N�9r0\vd. OU�eg\vd •�� 620 O oc o vs d� �e\\`Na� Goo�ry 130 \-•K "p Rowe Ln. N y 45 MOM a 510 45 5 17� oo Qj �z DP AFT.S U B M I TTA L 08/09/23 Street Design Recommendations It is important that requirements for street Simplifying Cross design are well aligned with other City code requirements and well coordinated due to the competing interests in limited right-of-way space. Sections Ultimately, the required design for streets inform the required right-of-way in greenfield conditions, The current DACS includes 12 cross sections whereas often in retrofit scenarios where right- with several options and varying right-of-way of-way is inadequate or cannot be obtained requirements for different street types in the tradeoffs or less ideal design must be considered. Ultimate Roadway Plan. It is recommended to The TMP documents improvements to street consolidate these to include a 6 lane 150 foot design standards in the Design and Construction ROW, 4 lane 120 foot ROW, and 3 lane 90 foot ROW Standards, last adopted in 2021, as well as defining street type for greenfield development streets street design requirements in urban, high density that are not located in the MU-G zoning districts Mixed Use Greenfield and Large Lot District (MU- (see following section for details). Figure 5.1 and G) Zoning as defined in the City Code. Lastly, best Figure 5.2 illustrate current 6 lane and 4 lane street practices for updating collector requirements in sections recommended to be kept in the DACS, the DACS are documented in the TMP for potential while a new revised section is likely necessary for future updates. It is recommended to develop collector streets. standards for landscaping and streetscapes in the DACS for street beautification, consistent with Round Rock 2030 goals. • . SECTION • • 15C Rov20R', 60 tf 1 61' t I 2r r_r w- r les I, tts - 13a I.. is r 10 'C' T 135' 135i 135' T 10 swwen IAwr V.dan IM> 9/4RFb MIARFD U.NJ_ �,,,,,i. .AN} SIARF' vniM v:nt •.v. en r.en Poauv CA'F 'RT.I -ATI, SCAPE -0.L 1 T,in Fc,hr• S(:APC f'AIr n .J PUUrs'nar NeR.yc r t -----. tMilli /i/ ' I Chapter S:Recommendations rF1AFT SUBMITTAL.08/09/23 Urban Street Standards for Higher Density Development Streets in urban settings with little to no setbacks to building lines, like existing downtown Round Rock, require a significantly different design approach. The following street sections in Figures 5.3 to 5.6 illustrate potential street sections for incorporation into an update to the DACS, which is recommended to include specific design standards for urban settings in the MU-G zoning district. In more compact ROW there is less space to balance the need for parking, wider sidewalks, streetscapes and special utility placement. These should all be considered in urban design standards, as well as access to businesses or the use of commercial alleys in development of urban design standards. FIGURE 5.3 - UPBAN O. PARKING 100'ROW i 10' 6' 18' 10' 12' 10' 18' 6' 10' SUP PLANT ANGLED PARK THRU TWLTL THRU ANGLED PARK PLANT SUP 68'F/F 1. Round Rock Transportation Master Plan �� DPAFT SUBMITTAL08/09/23 FIGURE 5.4 - URBAN COLLECTOR THREE LANE WITH PARALLEL PARKING AND FURNITURE ZONE 100' ROW •• P• •� ����� = rig"�+ ;>, CAFE CAFE `i� pi!di4!ii� i:iilll��l�l 1+ g� � •�� � � � � di��ll'y;� iw!�n4!'�i ��.' FIGURE 5.5 - URBAN COLLECTOR THREE-LANE WITH PARALLEL FIGURE 5.6 - URBAN COLLECTOR THREE-LANE NO PARKING - 80' ROW PARKING 80'POW 64 PIM • 8' 10, • DRAFT SUBMITTAL 08/09/23 Criteria for Alternative Street Design In addition to simplifying the number of cross Utility conflicts that cannot be relocated, sections, criteria should be developed for such as high power transmission lines alternative street design based on specific hardships created by existing conditions or special Existing drainagestructuresthatcannot considerations, along with triggers for when street be moved or altered sections differing from standards are allowable. Where retaining walls are required due The following includes a list of potential scenarios to cross slopes justifying the use of an alternative street design, and should be included in an update to the DACS: 4. Additional right-of-way may be required for turn lanes, roundabouts, or innovative 1. Sections crossing creeks, floodplain, or intersection designs and transition areas railroad crossings, including bridge structures; these sections may require different space requirements than the 150', in some cases more space for things like slope transitions may be required 2. If a shared use path has been built or designed for one side of a roadway, continuation of that path on one side of the roadway may allow for only a sidewalk to be built on the opposite side. Where no shared use paths are present, right- of-way must be dedicated in a way where the path may be built on either side of the road per the street standard 3. In scenarios where right-of-way cannot be dedicated or obtained due to the following, alternative design may be considered: Existing buildings near the current property line Round Rock Transportation Master Plan Chapter S:Recommendations I S5 �\ DPAFT SUBMITTAL 08/09/23 Collector Policy Recommendations As demonstrated in Chapter 3, some corridors in the roadways at locations with a median opening, if City may not operate an acceptable level of service divided. even with significant investments and expansion citywide. Exhibit 4 in this document identifies areas 8. Collectors should be placed at intervals along where additional collector capacity is needed to relieve arterials where future signalization is possible, projected congestion at build-out as a strategy for with a minimum signal spacing of 1,000' to existing congestion mitigation. signals or other collector/arterial crossings. Street connections at less than this spacing should be Collector policy recommendations are construed to considered local streets. be for primary collectors. Neighborhood collectors (collectors where houses are allowed to take access 9. When streets would or must traverse a 100-year from the street) may be used, but shall not connect to floodplain for astub-out street, spacing of collector arterials and must terminate at a primary collector. street crossings shall not exceed 1/2 mile 1. Collector facilities shall be designed and aligned in 10. Subdivisions shall be designed to connect to such a way as to balance traffic flow and speed. adjacent existing stub-out streets. 2. Collector facilities shall not have driveways for 11. Median openings on arterials should be planned at residential uses fronting the street. collector streets. 3. Collector facilities shall be designed to allow for 2 12. Collectors ending at a jurisdictional boundary shall lanes offreelyflowing traffic unimpeded by parking. be planned and designed with adjacent jurisdiction to support Round Rock collector policies. 4. Collector facilities shall include turn lanes at intersections with other collectors or turn lanes or a roundabout, if appropriate. 5. Collector facilities shall terminate only at another collector facility, an arterial, or with a stub-out at a property to be extended as a collector on any undeveloped adjacent parcels. 6. Collectors may either run in a general north-south or east-west direction through a development or be an "L" shape as in Figure 5.7. 7. Collectors must connect to Ultimate Roadway Plan ///56 1 Chapter 5:Recommendations DRAFT SUBMITTAL 08/09/23 13. Neighborhood Collectors should be designed with 15. Collectors should be designed to handle up to features to encourage appropriate speeds and 10,000 vehicles per day maximum. If projected provide visual indications that these roadways to exceed this threshold, the facility should be are not for long-distance trips. upsized to an arterial facility. 14. Collector streets shall be spaced at a maximum of 1/4 of a mile, unless natural or man-made features pose constraints. High Priorit Trail Prqjhacts High priority roadway and trail projects were developed based on evaluating projects that had the greatest impact to connectivity, congestion relief, and serving areas of growth and need based on the travel demand modeling results in Chapter 3 - Updating the Roadway Network (Page 34). Exhibit 6 illustrates high priority roadway and trail projects with a description of each project. In general, a strategy of trail system build out is to continue building on the City's success of constructing shared use paths along arterials as they are designed and completed. Where projects are noted as "high priority", this does not convey a specific order, as the order of project completion is determined based on funding availability and needs on an annual basis as part of CIP programming. These represent projects that are likely to be developed in the next 10-20 years in the City of Round Rock. Round Pock Transportation Master Plan Chapter S:Recommendations 157 $_ DRAFT SUBMITTAL 08/09/23 In addition to the projects in Exhibit 6, the following Table 5.2 includes the cumulative list of all roadway projects to complete the Ultimate Roadway Plan, including projects in the Roadway Impact Fee CIP in Greater Round Pock at the time of this plan development. The projects represent roughly $2 billion in transportation infrastructure needed to complete the Ultimate Roadway Plan for Round Rock. EXHIBIT 6: HIGH PPIOPITY POADWAY AND TPAIL PIROJECTS Note. Project numbers do not convey priority of projects relative to each other and represent priorities as a snapshot in time as of Spring 2023. icle r a fiek Rmrh Teravista Stoney Brook ;tl:a Prese Pa na Ston ©5..����" Lakeside QMeadow Settle /icro rr,' n,,,,., ,. lake ]i)YIngS '"hone .�••, Crossl • Chandier s Crossing Vttlages'af Walsh R� Chandler Creek Stone Canyon The Fern Bluff' Oaklands. R Brushy Round Rock — Creek South Creek ubi 4" Fore ■ ighla d . Horizo Vrnar Hollow /ij Chapter S:Recommendations DRAFT SUBMITTAL 03/09/23 Note: Project numbers do not convey priority of projects relative to each other and represent priorities as a snapshot in time as of Spring 2023.. 1431 Shared Use Path connection along roadway 10A: Kenny Fort widening and extension to connect existing and planned off-street trails from Joe DiMaggio to Old Settler's Blvd as to connect to County Park (no current plans) a 6 lane roadway with SUP (in construction) IOB: Kenny Fort widening and extension Wyoming Springs extension from Golden Oaks from Old Settler's Blvd to CR 112 as a to RM 1431 as a 4 lane roadway (not yet started) 6 lane roadway with SUP (in design) IOC: Kenny Fort widening and extension Creek Bend widening and extension from CR 112 to University as a 6 lane as a 4 lane roadway with a SUP roadwav with SUP not yet started from Old Settlers Blvd to RM 1431 Red Bud Ln widening from south of 4A: Eagles Nest Extension from Cypress Brushy Creek to Gattis School Rd as a Blvd to future Chisholm Trail as a 4 lane 4 lane roadway with SUP (in design) roadway with a SUP (not yet started)" 4B: Eagles Nest Extension from future Chisholm Red Bud Ln widening from US 79/Palm Valley to Trail to Wyoming Springs as a 4 lane roadway Paloma Lake Blvd as a 4 lane roadway with SUP with a SUP (not yet started) (in design) Wyoming Springs extension from Old Settler's Blvd extension from Red Bud Ln to 0[ Brightwater Blvd to Sam Bass Rd as a CR 110 as a 6 lane roadway with SUP (in design) 4 lane roadway with SUP (in design) CR 122 Realignment low water crossing upgrade (not started) Chisholm Trail widening and extension as a 5 lane roadway with SUP to match 15A: CR 112 widening and realignment from A.W. • existing section (not yet started) Grimes to CR 110 to 6 lane roadway (not started) 15113: Avery Nelson extension from eastern end Gattis School Road widening to a 6 lane roadway to CR 118 as a 4 lane roadway (not started) El with SUP (in design) Widening of University Blvd to a 4 lane section EM from A.W. Grimes to SH 130 (in construction) Gattis School Road widening from Via Sonoma EITrail to Red Bud Lane as a 6 lane roadway with Corridor Study as part of TMP - For more SUP (in construction) iE information, see the Appendix Kenney Fort Blvd Section 2 & 3 extension as • a 6 lane roadway with shared use path (in Corridor Study as part of TMP - For more construction) MI information, see the Appendix Round Rock Transportation Master Plan Chapter 5: Recommendations 1 59 $__ DRAFT.SUBMITTAL_08j09 23 TABLE 5.2 ULTIMATE ROADWAY PLAN PPOJECTS Roadway Arterial C Wyoming Springs Deep Wood Dr 4 Lane Proposed $19,400,000 Arterial 3 New Hope Rd (Future) IH 35 SBFR 4 Lane Proposed $28,500,000 Arterial K University Blvd Wallin Bradley 4 Lane Proposed $33,500,000 Avery Nelson Pkwy 5015' E of CR 110 CR 118 4 Lane Proposed $20,600,000 Avery Nelson Pkwy A.W. Grimes Blvd 3580' E of A.W. Grimes 4 Lane Enhanced $14,000,000 Blvd Avery Nelson Pkwy 3580' E of A.W. Grimes Kenney Fort Blvd (Future) 4 Lane Enhanced $11,800,000 Blvd Avery Nelson Pkwy Kenney Fort Blvd CR 110 4 Lane Enhanced $10,200,000 Avery Nelson Pkwy CR 110 5015' E of CR 110 4 Lane Proposed $12,000,000 Avery Nelson Pkwy CR 118 Ed Schmidt 4 Lane Proposed $2,000,000 Bratton Ln IH 35 SBFR 1160' S of Michael Angelo 4 Lane Enhanced $53,300,000 Campus Village Dr Zodiac Ln Avery Nelson Pkwy 2 Lane Proposed $4,800,000 Chisholm Trl Rd W Old Settlers Blvd Sam Bass Rd 4 Lane Enhanced $37,300,000 Chisholm Tri Rd TMP 3 RM 1431 4 Lane Proposed $13,200,000 Chisholm Tri Rd RM 1431 CR 173 4 Lane Proposed $19,400,000 Chisholm Tri Rd 3250' N of Wolle Ln 1980' N of Wolle Ln 5 Lane Enhanced $5,000,000 Collector CR 112 Wallin Bradley 2 Lane Proposed $2,900,000 Collector O'Connor Dr McNeil Rd 2 Lane Proposed $13,100,000 College Park Avery Nelson Rd 1355' N of Old Settlers Blvd 4 Lane Proposed $21,700,000 CR 107 CR 107 University Blvd 6 Lane Enhanced $5,000,000 CR 108 Avery Nelson Pkwy North 2 Lane Proposed $15,000,000 CR 110 Westinghouse Rd US 79 6 Lane Proposed $132,900,000 CR 118 University Blvd Avery Nelson Pkwy 4 Lane Proposed $7,800,000 /i/ 1 1 Chapter 5:Recommendations DRAFT SUBMITTAL 08/09/23 TABLE 5.2 ULTIMATE POADWAY PLAN . . • • Poodway Nm, From Street ProjectDescription CR 122 Red Bud Ln 230' SW of Rosalina Loop 4 Lane - Enhanced $13,700,000 CR 122 230' SW of Rosalina Loop 100' S of Emilia Ln 3 Lane Proposed $2,500,000 CR 122 100' S of Emilia Ln 100' S of Rosalina Loop 3 Lane Proposed $1,200,000 CR 122 100' S of Rosalina Loop 100' S of Penelope Ct 3 Lane Proposed $3,500,000 CR 172 Hesters Crossing SH 45 4 Lane Enhanced $4,800,000 CR 173 IH 35 SBFR 3250' N of Wolle Ln 5 Lane Enhanced $2,100,000 Creek Bend Blvd New Hope Rd (Future) RM 1431 4 Lane Proposed $24,900,000 Creek Bend Blvd RM 1431 West End PI 4 Lane - Enhanced (1/2) $13,800,000 Creek Bend Blvd West End PI Camino Del Verdes PI 4 Lane Proposed $3,500,000 Creek Bend Blvd Brushy Creek Wyoming Springs Dr 4 Lane Enhanced $11,100,000 Deepwood Dr Sam Bass Rd 345' N of RM 620 4 Lane Proposed $19,000,000 Deepwood Dr 345' N of RM 620 RM 620 4 Lane Enhanced $1,400,000 Double Creek Dr US 79 Sweetgum Ln 4 Lane Proposed $26,300,000 Eagles Nest Chisholm Trl Rd (Future) IH 35 NBFR 4 Lane Proposed $12,300,000 Eagles Nest IH 35 NBFR Cypress Blvd 4 Lane Proposed $21,500,000 Eagles Nest Dr Wyoming Springs Dr Chisholm Trl Rd (Future) 4 Lane Proposed $41,600,000 Eagles Nest Dr Chisholm Trl Rd (Future) IH 35 NBFR 4 Lane Proposed $12,300,000 Ed Schmidt Blvd ETJ Limit Chandler Rd 4 Lane Enhanced $10,800,000 FM 1431 Sam Bass Rd 1100' W of Mayfield Ranch 6 Lane Enhanced $24,700,000 Blvd FM 1460 (A.W. Grimes Old Settlers Blvd 375' S of Chandler Creek 6 Lane Enhanced $1,900,000 Blvd) Blvd FM 1460 (A.W. Grimes 375' S of Chandler Creek 1250' N of Tiger Trl 6 Lane Enhanced $1,700,000 Blvd) Blvd Round Rock Transportation Master Plan Chapter 5: Recommendations 1 61 I\ DRAFT SUBMITTAL 08/09/23 TABLE 5.2 ULTIMATE POADWAY PLAN PPOJECTS (CONTINUED) Roadway N• From - • - Project Description • FM 1460 (A.W. Grimes 1250' N of Tiger Tri US 79 6 Lane Enhanced $7,000,000 Blvd) Gattis School Rd Red Bud Ln SH 130 4 Lane Enhanced $11,600,000 Gattis School Rd Windy Park Dr Red Bud Ln 6 Lane Enhanced $9,000,000 Great Oaks Dr Sam Bass Rd Brushy Creek Rd 2 Lane Proposed $8,900,000 Greenlawn Blvd IH 35 NBFR SH 45 EBFR 6 Lane Enhanced (1/3) $1,100,000 Hesters Crossing Rd Dry Creek Dr IH 35 SBFR 4 Lane Enhanced (AM) $17,300,000 Joe Dimaggio Blvd Extension Kenney Fort Blvd US 79 3 Lane Proposed $7,000,000 Kenney Fort Blvd CR 117 north 4 Lane Enhanced $48,000,000 Kenney Fort Blvd CR 117 145' N of Haselwood Ln 6 Lane Proposed $15,100,000 Kenney Fort Blvd CR 117 125' N of Haselwood Ln 6 Lane Proposed $15,100,000 Kenney Fort Blvd Old Settlers Blvd 2540' S of Old Settler's 6 Lane Proposed $5,000,000 Blvd Kenney Fort Blvd 200' N of Bluffstone Dr Old Settlers Blvd 6 Lane Proposed $9,200,000 Kenney Fort Blvd 830' S of Gattis School Rd SH 45 6 Lane Proposed $1,800,000 Kenney Fort Blvd 2540' S of Old Settler's 4625' N of Chandler Creek 6 Lane Proposed (1/2) $4,900,000 Blvd Blvd Kenney Fort Blvd Old Settler's Blvd 2540' S of Old Settler's 6 Lane Proposed (1/2) $5,000,000 Blvd Kenney Fort Blvd 4625' N of Chandler Creek 3115' N of Chandler Creek 6 Lane Proposed $10,700,000 Blvd Blvd Kenney Fort Blvd Old Settler's Blvd 2540' S of Old Settler's 6 Lane Proposed $4,900,000 Blvd Kenney Fort Blvd Chandler Creek Blvd Joe DiMaggio Blvd 6 Lane - Proposed $9,600,000 Kenney Fort Blvd 2540' S of Old Settlers Chandler Creek Blvd 6 Lane Proposed $10,700,000 Blvd Kenney Fort Blvd 125' N of Haselwood Ln 200' N of Bluffstone Dr 4 Lane Proposed $15,100,000 Kenney Fort Blvd Chandler Creek Blvd Joe DiMaggio Blvd 6 Lane Enhanced $9,600,000 ///62 1 Chapter 5:Recommendations DRAFT SUBMITTAL 08/09/23 TABLE 5.2 ULTIMATE POADWAY PLAN . . • • Poodway Name From Street ProjectDescription Kenney Fort Blvd 200' N of Bluffstone Dr Old Settlers Blvd 6 Lane Proposed $9,200,000 Kenney Fort Blvd 3115' N of Chandler Creek Chandler Creek Blvd 6 Lane Proposed $3,700,000 Blvd McNeil Extension S Mays St Georgetown St 3 Lane Existing $17,000,000 Medical Center Pkwy College Park Seton Pkwy 4 Lane Proposed $1,100,000 N Mays St 540' N of Steam Way Northwest Dr 4 Lane - Enhanced (AM) $3,900,000 N Mays St 350' S of University Blvd 2000' S of University Blvd 4 Lane Enhanced $8,300,000 N Mays St Paloma Dr 540' N of Steam Way 4 Lane Enhanced $5,500,000 New Hope Rd 1000' E of Wyoming IH 35 SBFR 4 Lane Proposed $60,800,000 Springs Dr New Hope Rd Sam Bass Rd 240' W of Lagoona Dr 4 Lane Enhanced (1/2) $16,500,000 New Hope Rd 240' W of Lagoona Dr Flowstone Ln 4 Lane Enhanced (1/2) $8,200,000 New Hope Rd Flowstone Ln 1000' E of Wyoming 4 Lane Proposed $11,100,000 Springs Dr Old Settlers Blvd A.W. Grimes Blvd Kenney Fort Blvd 6 Lane Enhanced $29,600,000 Old Settlers Blvd CR 110 SH 130 4 Lane Proposed $20,800,000 Old Settlers Blvd Red Bud Ln CR 110 4 Lane Proposed $20,200,000 Old Settlers Blvd Kenney Fort Blvd Red Bud Ln 6 Lane Enhanced $28,500,000 Old Settlers Blvd N Mays St Sunrise Rd 6 Lane - Enhanced (1/3) $14,700,000 Old Settlers Blvd Sunrise Rd A.W. Grimes Blvd 6 Lane Enhanced $31,100,000 Red Bud Ln Guadalajara St SH 130 4 Lane Enhanced $20,000,000 Red Bud Ln Forest Ridge Blvd 26S' S of Forest Ridge Blvd 4 Lane - Enhanced (AM) $12,300,000 Red Bud Ln Guadalajara St 160' N of Margarita Loop 4 Lane Proposed $7,300,000 Red Bud Ln 265' S of Forest Ridge Blvd 280' S of Woodlawn Ln 4 Lane Enhanced $21,500,000 Red Bud Ln 160' N of Margarita Loop CR 117 4 Lane - Enhanced (1/2) $5,600,000 Round Rock Transportation Master Plan Chapter 5:Recommendations 1 63 1\ DRAFT SUBMITTAL 08/09/23 TABLE 5.2 ULTIMATE POADWAY PLAN PPOJECTS (CONTINUED) Poadway NameFrom • Project Description • Red Bud Ln 280' S of Woodlawn Ln 130' S of Old Oaks Dr 4 Lane - Enhanced $5,500,000 Red Bud Ln CR 117 Old Settlers Blvd 4 Lane - Enhanced (1/2) $4,700,000 Red Bud Ln Old Settlers Blvd 170' N of Joseph St 4 Lane Enhanced $8500,000 Red Bud Ln 315' S of Country Dr Wildflower Trl 4 Lane Enhanced $1,600,000 Red Bud Ln 170' N of Joseph St 160' S of Covered Wagon 4 Lane Enhanced $3,500,000 Trl Red Bud Ln Wildflower Trl 295' S of Wildflower Trl 4 Lane Enhanced $900,000 Red Bud Ln 160' S of Covered Wagon US 79 4 Lane Enhanced $7,800,000 rl Red Bud Ln 295' S of Wildflower Trl 840' N of Forest Creek Dr 4 Lane Enhanced $700,000 Red Bud Ln 840' N of Forest Creek Dr 340' S of Forest Creek Dr 4 Lane Enhanced $300,000 Red Bud Ln 340' S of Forest Creek Dr Gattis School Rd 4 Lane Enhanced $1,200,000 Redbud Ln Gattis School Rd. Wilke Ridge Ln 4 Lane Enhanced $11,400,000 RM 1431 1100' W of Mayfield Ranch 850' E of Stone Oak Dr 6 Lane Enhanced $5,200,000 Blvd RM 1431 850' E of Stone Oak Dr 5195' E of Stone Oak St 6 Lane - Enhanced $5,200,000 RM 1431 5195' E of Stone Oak St IH 35 SBFR 6 Lane Enhanced $7,000,000 RM 620 Deepwood Dr IH 35 SBFR 6 Lane Enhanced $12,600,000 RM 620 Deepwood Dr IH 35 SBFR 6 Lane Enhanced $9,200,000 S Mays St Nash St Gattis School Rd 4 Lane - Enhanced (AM) $4,300,000 S Mays St McNeil Dr Nash St 4 Lane - Enhanced $5,600,000 S Mays St / Dell Way Gattis School Rd Greenlawn Blvd 4 Lane - Enhanced (AM) $21,700,000 Sam Bass Rd RM 1431 Wyoming Springs Dr 6 Lane Enhanced $66,600,000 Sam Bass Rd Wyoming Springs Dr W Old Settlers Blvd 6 Lane Enhanced $5,700,000 Sam Bass Rd FM 3406 Desert Willow Dr 3 Lane Enhanced $3,900,000 ///64 1 Chapter 5:Recommendations DRAFT SUBMITTAL 08/09/23 TABLE 5.2 ULTIMATE POADWAY PLAN . . • • Poadway Name From Street Project Description Sam Bass Rd Desert Willow Dr Creek Bend Blvd 3 Lane - Enhanced $2,100,000 Sam Bass Rd Creek Bend Blvd Hairy Man Dr 3 Lane Enhanced $2,400,000 Sam Bass Rd Hairy Man Rd Chisholm Trl Rd 3 Lane Enhanced $14,800,000 Schultz SH 4S EBFR 290' S of SH 45 EBFR 4 Lane - Enhanced $11,800,000 Schultz 290' S of SH 45 EBFR 255' S of Autumn Sage 4 Lane Enhanced $15,100,000 Seton Pkwy 2400' N of Avery Nelson Avery Nelson Blvd 3 Lane Existing $1,800,000 Blvd Sunrise Rd University Blvd Hidden Valley Dr 4 Lane Enhanced $4,800,000 Sunrise Rd Hidden Valley Dr 32S' S of Eagles Nest St 4 Lane Enhanced (AM) $1,600,000 Sunrise Rd 32S' S of Eagles Nest St Applegate Cir 4 Lane Enhanced (AM) $900,000 Sunrise Rd Applegate Cir Lake Dr 4 Lane Enhanced (AM) $700,000 Sunrise Rd Lake Dr 545' S of Lake Dr 4 Lane Enhanced (AM) $300,000 Sunrise Rd 545' S of Lake Dr Old Settlers Blvd 4 Lane Enhanced (AM) $1,200,000 Sunrise Rd Old Settlers Blvd Country Aire Dr 4 Lane Enhanced (AM) $800,000 Terravista Club Dr Fairmeadow Dr A.W. Grimes Blvd 4 Lane Enhanced $16,100,000 Tiger Tri Buckeye Ln A.W. Grimes Blvd 4 Lane Enhanced $8,700,000 University Blvd SH-130 CR 100 6 Lane Enhanced $32,400,000 University Blvd University Oaks Blvd 335' W of Sunrise Dr 6 Lane Enhanced $17,300,000 University Blvd 335' W of Sunrise Dr A.W. Grimes Blvd 6 Lane Enhanced $53,300,000 University Blvd A.W. Grimes Blvd 1830' E of A.W. Grimes 4 Lane Enhanced $8,200,000 Blvd University Blvd 1830' E of A.W. Grimes Lunata Way 4 Lane - Enhanced $17,000,000 Blvd University Blvd Lunata Way Kenney Fort Blvd (Future) 4 Lane Enhanced $4,300,000 Round Rock Transportation Master Plan Chapter S. Recommendations 1 65 �� DRAFT SUB M I TTA L 08/09/23 TABLE 5.2 ULTIMATE ROADWAY PLAN • • • • Poadway Name From Street Project Description University Blvd Kenney Fort Blvd SH 130 4 Lane - Enhanced $8,500,000 US 79 IH 35 NBFR AW Grimes 6 Lane Enhanced $16,400,000 US 79 IH 35 NBFR 200' E of Red Bud Ln 6 Lane Enhanced $8,200,000 US 79 AW Grimes Red Bud Ln 6 Lane Enhanced $12,800,000 US 79 AW Grimes Red Bud Ln 6 Lane Enhanced $9,200,000 US 79 200' E of Red Bud Ln 1690' E of Red Bud Ln 6 Lane Enhanced $1,600,000 W Old Settlers Blvd Sam Bass Rd Creek Bend Blvd 6 Lane Enhanced $14,600,000 W Old Settlers Blvd Creek Bend Blvd Chisolm Trail Rd 6 Lane Enhanced $25,400,000 W Old Settlers Blvd Chisholm Trl Rd (Future) IH 3S NBFR 6 Lane Enhanced $9,600,000 Wallin Bradley College Park Dr Avery Nelson Blvd 3 Lane Proposed $9500,000 Wallin Bradley College Park (Future) A.W. Grimes Blvd 4 Lane Proposed $9,000,000 Wallin Bradley A.W. Grimes Blvd Kenney Fort Blvd (Future) 4 Lane Proposed $20,800,000 Westinghouse Rd IH 35 SBFR IH 35 NBFR 6 Lane Enhanced $9,200,000 Westinghouse Rd IH 35 SBFR IH 35 NBFR 6 Lane Enhanced $9,200,000 Wyoming Springs RM 620 O'Connor Dr 4 Lane Proposed $17,000,000 Wyoming Springs Dr RM 1431 390' N of Goldenoak Cir 4 Lane Proposed $17,500,000 Wyoming Springs Dr Alondra Way Eagles Nest Dr (Future) 4 Lane Enhanced $5,200,000 Wyoming Springs Dr 390' N of Goldenoak Cir Alondra Way 4 Lane - Enhanced (1/2) $1,800,000 Wyoming Springs Dr Sam Bass Rd Creek Bend Blvd 4 Lane - Proposed $26,400,000 $1,962,100,000 ///66 1 Chapter 5:Recommendations DRAFT SUBMITTAL 08/09/23 High PIntersection Projects In working with staff in development of the TMP, several bottleneck intersections were identified, and traffic counts were collected at locations throughout the City. Both short-term and long-term improvements were identified and documented below. For Long-term improvements, an Intersection Control Evaluation tool was developed to evaluate and rank out various alternatives based on expected future traffic from the Ultimate Roadway Plan modeling. These improvements are anticipated to be further in the future, but are helpful for determining if additional right-of-way may be needed and if more significant innovative intersections or grade separations may be necessary to accommodate anticipated future demand. Short-Term Intersection Improvements Five intersections within Round Rock were evaluated for short term improvements at bottlenecks identified by the City. Traffic counts were collected in spring 2023 and evaluated for performance in Synchro software. Existing deficiencies were noted at several locations. The improvements were recommended as short-term improvements for consideration in future CIP programs and are displayed below in Table 5.3. SHORT-TERMTABLE 5.3 • RECOMMENDATIONS Intersection Recommendation Old Settlers at AW Grimes Add Right Turn Overlap signal heads for northbound and eastbound approaches Consider increasing cycle length to 180 seconds to clear queues US 79 at Red Bud Evaluate removal of split phasing on Red Bud Lane US 79 at AW Grimes Evaluate closure of driveway on southbound approach due to observed high incidence of crashes Old Settlers at Sunrise Remove permissive left turn phasing Extend Southbound Right Turn Old Settlers at Mays Explore lead/lag turns instead of split phasing on Mays Street Round Rock Transportation Master Plan Chapter 5:Recommendations 1 67 �� DRAFT SU BMI_TTnI ORInc,/27 Long-Term Intersection Improvements Six intersections were evaluated for long-term improvements to evaluate possible higher capacity intersection types at various bottlenecks in the City. A process was developed to evaluate intersections called Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) based on methodologies established by the FHWA and implemented in other communities. Full results of the alternatives analysis with scoring can be found in the Appendix. Table 5.4 represents the recommended long-term solution, based on projected increased volumes from Travel Demand Modeling in Chapter 4. TABLE 5.4 • NG-TEPM INTEPSECTION PECOMMENDATIONS Intersection Recommendation Other Options Evaluated Old Settlers at AW Grimes Implement dual left turn lanes and Grade separation, Continuous Flow right turn lanes on all approaches Intersection US 79 at Red Bud Implement dual left turn lanes and Grade separation of US 79 over Red Bud, right turn lanes on all approaches Grade separation of Red Bud over US 79 US 79 at AW Grimes Implement a grade separated N/A intersection Remove acceleration lanes on all Old Settlers at Sunrise approaches and widen for dual lefts Continuous flow intersection and right turns on all approaches Displaced Left Turns on Mays Grade separation of Mays over Old Old Settlers at Mays Street at Old Settler's Blvd Settler's (grade separation other direction determined not feasible) Relocate southbound approach Traditional signal with 4-leg per the Ultimate Roadway approach, determined not feasible University at County Road 107 Plan and a continuous green due to the anticipated queues "T" intersection signal for westbound spilling into SH 130 northbound approach interchange !�, I Chapter 5:Recommendations DRAFT SUBMITTAL 08/09/23 Technology and ITS The City is using smart technology to monitor signals and evaluate performance metrics for the system using GridSmart. The Traffic Management Center has been completed and operates daily to observe traffic and help troubleshoot issues. It is recommended that the City continue to invest in citywide communications and infrastructure for ITS. It is anticipated that the cost is $30 Million to complete improvements desired. Round Rock Transportation Master Plan Chapter S:Recommendations 1 69 �$- D RAFT S U B M I TTA L 08/09/23 Safety Projects A Safety Action Plan (SAP) was developed as part A heat map of all crashes and the locations of of the TMP process, which includes a detailed fatalities in the city during this study period is analysis of crashes in the City and development of shown in Exhibit 6 on the following page. Based a High Injury Network (HIN). Several projects were on this map, it can be concluded that the highest identified with safety countermeasures to address crash clusters are in the University Blvd east of crashes in the City. Crashes occurring along IH-35, US-79 Between IH-35 and AW Grimes, and facilities with other jurisdictional authority will Gattis School Rd at AW Grimes areas of the City. required continued coordination for improvement. This safety analysis follows the industry best practices of addressing fatal and injury-related SEVEPITY (NOT INCLUDING IH 35 OP SH 45) crashes by targeting the roads with the highest rate of crashes. The methodologies used to identify N - No B - A - these roads, as well as the recommended safety Injury, C Possible Suspected Suspected K - Fatal � improvements, are identified in the SAP for the 99 - Injury Minor Serious Injury City to implement after the adoption of the TMP. Unknown Injury Injury The SAP is viewable in the Appendix. 1,505 1,543 1,512 1,500 1,405 Crash History 1,176 The data used to develop this SAP for the City of Round Rock was pulled from the Crash Records 1,000 Information System (CPIS) Database for January 1, 2017 - December 31, 2021. It is important to note that this data was filtered to exclude crashes that occurred on the main lanes of IH-35 and SH-45. soo During this study period, 12,845 crashes were reported by local police, 894 of which resulted in a fatality, serious injury, or minor injury (KABs). Figure 5.8 below displays the crash severity of the studied crashes. 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 ///70 1 Chapter S:Recommendations DRAFT 08/09/23 EXHIBIT 6:KMITYWIDE CRASH HEAT MAP FatalSource: TxDOT CP/S Database (2017-2027) Legend - Leanderr Hutto Cedar Park x .� t ,rte/ w i�}•i 4,t sr I V Austin \ Pflugerville DRA.`T St!RMITTAt oR/n(l/77 Citywide High- Injury Network The collision data used to develop the HIN was 0.3S miles in length. They were chosen for study pulled from the Crash Records Information System based on a number of factors including high crash (CRIS) for January 1, 2017 - December 31, 2021, for segment rate, high number of injuries/fatalities, the City of Round Rock's roadway network. The and lack of current construction planned to following High-Injury Network was developed improve conditions. Tables 5.5 and 5.6 show the to identify the roads and intersections that have HINToplOsegmentsandintersections respectively. higher rates of crashes when compared to their Exhibit 7 is a visual representation of the Round existing volumes within the city. Rock HIN Top 10 Locations including locations where a fatal crash occurred. In total, the Round Rock HIN encompasses 21.76 miles of road, and has a total of 538 KAB crashes (representing over 60% of citywide KABs), and 6 21 .76 miles fatal crashes (representing over 46% of citywide 41;L of road on the HIN fatal crashes). KAB crashes include fatal, serious, and non-incapacitating injuries. From the HIN, ten locations (six segments and 60 % 00000 four intersections) were selected for further study. citywide total • The selected segments were between 0.22 and ywide KABs TABLE 5.5 STUDY SEGMENTS IABLE • irr Crash Street Name From Segment Pate L iits �== Gattis School Rd Mays St Surrey St 0.22 1 3 34.12 Georgetown US 79 1 9 AW Grimes Blvd plateau US 79 0.21 - 17 178.72 Vista Blvd AW Grimes Old Settlers - 7 N Mays St Anderson Bagdad 0.24 9 145.83 Blvd Ave Ave Round Rock Ave 135 SBFR Brown St 0.25 6 139.15 Creek Bend Old Settlers 3 N Mays St Texas Ave BowRdman 0.29 10 92.62 La Frontera 1 45 EBFR 2 AW Grimes Blvd Tiger Trail Timberline 0.3S 7 44.94 Blvd ///72 1 Chapter 5:Recommendations EXHIBIT 7: SAFETY ACTION PLAN STUDY LOCATIONS i p low WE 4° DRAFT SUBMITTAL 08/09/23 Safety Action Plan With the data-driven analysis completed through the HIN development and project identification, the final step of developing the SAP is to create an action plan for next steps. With this new list of projects and dataset in hand, the City of Round Rock identified the following actions displayed in Table 5.7 to continue progress on safety citywide: TABLE 5.7 ACTION PLAN • • - - • • Timeframe Publicly commit to the goal Pass a resolution at City Council that commits of reducing roadway fatalities the City of Round Rock to significantly reduce Short-term, 1-2 years & injuries. fatal & severe crashes by 2045 Obtain funding for recommended Short-term, 1-2 years countermeasures Move forward with identified countermeasure projects. Return after construction for updated data Long-term, 8+ years Conduct more countermeasure studies along Medium-term, 3-8 years HIN roads Continue to study and update the HIN. Update the HIN regularly (every 2-3 years) as Medium-term, 3-8 years, more crash data becomes available Ongoing Develop a method for Partner with Communications to create Short-term, 1-2 years, Ongoing reporting on safety progress. regular safety program reporting ///74 1 Chapter S:Recommendations DRAFT SUBMITTAL 08/09/23 Transit Systems FIGUPE 5.9 CUPPENT Recommendations for the transit system are largely taken from the 2022 Transit Development so N3 Texas State 1. ,}Ascension Seton Plan (TDP) and adapted in the Transportation ~Jn\ver5�y9k 'f4 Master Plan. The City is a member of Capital ■ Accu Round Rock pve�yo� Metro Transit Authority (CMTA) and currently has Premium NK�y fixed route services for several routes as shown in outcec5 P it A&M Figure 5.9. The following are the recommendations �° Stony Point from the TDP adopted in 2022 and incorporated in o y HS the Transportation Master Plan. C Mesa Park or o E W 8 rn Fixed Route Services ROUND ROCK 0 TRANSIT CENTER Housing Main St Authority Lin It is recommended that the City of Round Rock Q �'F continue offering fixed route service as the microtransit service begins and data is collected \CD on usage of the microtransit system in the short- term. The following routes are recommended to DettWay be maintained: North Round Rock, Tech Ridge, 980 Louis Henna Bt 0m and Route 980 as shown in Figure 5.9. ------ microtransit — ------ Microtransit \ s e�\$Branch Pkwy The City of Round Rock is moving forward with an initial phase of microtransit on-demand service we "Seg with a 3rd party provider as of the development WHoward Ln dnehOkwy of this plan. After the first year, the current plan is `x`980® New Life \\ \ Howard Ln to expand this service citywide to serve residents N�g` Park&Ride .____ , and also provide sufficient coverage for ADA users OHoward *` TECH RIDGEQ with wheelchair accessible vehicles. 980 ` Continues to Downtown Austin/UT Round ROCk Transportation Master Plan Chapter 5:Recommendations 1 75 �� DRAFT SUBMITTAI n,g/nQ/�'1 Corridor Studies The Transportation Master Plan selected the Sam Bass and McNeil corridors for study due to the constrained nature of these corridors due to limited ROW and adjacent land being developed for the majority of these corridors. The 2017 version of the Ultimate Roadway Plan calls for both of these roads to have enhanced capacity (additional lanes), but these widenings were determined to likely be infeasible. These corridors are both congested, however, so a more detailed assessment of capacity, safety, and multimodal enhancements were assessed and targeted public feedback conducted to determine long term solutions for these corridors. This corridor study approach could be replicated on other constrained corridors in the City with similar constrained characteristics. The corridor studies mentioned below are viewable in the Appendix. Sam Bass Rd The Sam Bass Road corridor limits are from Wyoming Springs Drive to IH-35 Southbound Frontage Road (SBFR), which is approximately 2.19 miles in length. Sam Bass Road is a 2-lane undivided facility from Old Settlers Boulevard to Galloping Road, and a 4-lane undivided facility from Galloping Road to IH-35 SBFR. The posted speed limit along the corridor is 35 mph and is classified as a 4-Lane Enhanced Facility on the 2017 TMP. The existing land use along the study corridor is mostly small-scale neighborhood commercial (Figure 5.10). After conducting existing field observations, four intersections along the corridor were selected for additional operational and safety analysis: A. Creek Bend Boulevard (Signalized) C. Hairy Man Road (All-way Stop Controlled) B. Chisholm Trail Road (Signalized) D. Old Settlers Road (Two-way Stop Controlled) FIGUIRE 5.10 SAM BASS EXISTING LAND USE & STUDY PECOMMENDATIONS • 0 • 0 �M.rorv„q, temv.. Oo sox., ur4Ywoo4nvKdc­1 ; n o. !� I Chapter 5:Recommendations DRAFT SUBMITTAL 08/09/23 McNeil Rd McNeil Road is a 4-1ane undivided facility throughout the corridor. Located in southeast Round Rock, the McNeil Road corridor study limits are from the City Limits to Mays Street, which is approximately 2.42 miles in length. Existing land uses in the area are mostly residential with the Round Rock Greenbelt extending off of CR 172 (Figure 5.11). The posted speed limit is 45 mph, from the City Limits to CR 172 and 40 mph from CR 172 to IH-35. This section of McNeil Road is classified as a 6 Lane Enhanced Facility according to the Round Rock Transportation Master Plan. Five intersections along the corridor were selected for additional operational and safety analysis. The following outlines the corridor intersections and traffic control: A. CR 172 (Signalized) D. Round Rock W Drive (Signalized) B. Deep Wood Drive (Two-way Stop Controlled) E. McNeil Road & IH-35 Interchange (Signalized) C. St Williams Street (Signalized) FIGURE 5.11 MCNEIL . D EXISTING LAND USE & STUDY INTERSECTIONS . O - O O : O • Co mill Ian d Uso �Endaaaal : f�l Sn*FanyF; MndtMc i ONKr + �Two Farcy � �M� fmk M'tdSLK4.nr a Cgemti+ i.d Op.nSpx�,R.cvntbaul •'•�,� i 1,-.!Uettitoru! Uo4.M4OP4 Agnt*wA Round Rock Transportation Master Plan Chapter 5:Recommendations 177 �� DRAFT SUBMITTAL 08/09/23 FIGURE • • RD RECOMMENDATIONS MAP old Sealer=_91W Intersettiorn Ocnstall a Iraftic signal Imeets Warrant 3 O \y ©Chanitrtel ie eastbound right-turn lane 1♦ Instill a roundabout(does not DISCLAIMER: ♦ warrant traffic signal) ©Add median to divide northbound \ ...roach \� \\ Any improvementson \\\\ \ IH-3S will require approval by I• • • Propa.ed cro..section _ \�. � "'Xeftft_ may be superseded by larger investments to the 35 corridor. abe..mlw Hermit—Intersection \\ `\ Meatlows Dr Intersection: OUpgrade existing \\ ♦♦ O Upgrade exlstlny Illumination ♦\ Illumination \\\ Add a striped crosswalk to \ `\ the northeast leg Chisholm Tri Intersection: \ \\ ©Implement protected left turn \\ ♦ phasing %\ ♦♦ O Construct median to prevent % westbound lefts into the % shopping center driveway % ,♦ IH-351n[erse� W tlon: `\ ripe♦ ♦♦ -------- O\ 0 nut inside Rbow FIGUREane to p,a­rrt • RECOMMENDATIONS • ■ Rock West Greenbek Extansiorc distanceElamine sight ssuesExtend pedestrian foci litiestoconnect IH-35 North- South-loo for multiple two-way stop Rock west Greenbelt to La Frontera O Re-time signals to a four-phase timing plan controlled neighborhood development inter"'tions along the ®Add protected pedestrian crossing at Southbound Frontage Rd Sianal Only ;L Corridor Oakridge/CR 172 signal O Add eastbound right-turn green arrow to run when railroad crossing arms re blocking north and east legs of the intersection Add southbound right-turn green arrow to run when railroad crossing arms are blocking south leg of the intersection Oakr doe/CR 1721n[ersectgi ©Upgrade current signal a[C li © with new road alignment Add Add left turn lanes for all --� _ —————-——-———— directions --------- - `� 2017TMP Project-Add ----- —————-———— westbound right turn lane -- --------- O ----------'© ©----------------''-- -----' .— -------'-------�I ------- ------------------- 'a�' lt<(/ Round Rack W Dr Intersacflen' IH-35 8 Railroad Intersection: ®Refresh crosswalk markings 0 Improve pedestrian crossing �a. over railroad tracks at .. Add pedestrian refuge Island with addition of northwest corner chann.11-cl right turn lane(current city project) -- Deep Wood Dr Intersection: Install ADA compliant directions ramps ' O Install new traffic signal 0 Provlde pedestrian signal heads and APS push Note About Cross Section ate new CR 172 alignment that t. ®Enlarge corner clip at NE corner buttons Existing four lane cross th from Oakridge Or to Improve sight distance(need to section to remain due to lidnew CR172 alignmenttobe four acquire ROW) right-of-way constraints a median an ®Install crosswalk markings 6 ADA and traffic demand along as compliant directional ramps the corridor ///78 1 Chapter S:Recommendations C O 'a "o e n {fl = o O c N � O Q 1: u L a ° • we C 'v O V0 DRAFTSl!RMITTQ 0$/09/23 PolicySummary - Integratetrails . . transit into This chapter summarizes all the recommendations into a chart with the plan actionable timeframes and their relationship to the plan goals and objectives in the Transportation Master Plan applicable to each Increase safety action. Recommendations are grouped into policies, projects, and programs. The actions included in this Chapter are intended to be measures a road map for implementation of policies, projects, and programs transportation in the short and medium term to make progress toward the TMP's goals and objectives as a way to measure progress. planning • • Abbreviation O updated policies O Integrate trails and transit in the plan T O 0 • • • • st Increase safety measures in transportation planning 5 • • • • Direction on updated policies and design standards D Improve Improve bottlenecks in the City B bottlenecks in the Preserve right-of-way for full network build-out. P AN-V city Plan for collectors and improved connectivity requirements. C • Preserve •• • for full networkbuild-out Plan for • - • 1 • • improved 1connectivity req • - -• - - ///80 1 Chapter 6:Conclusions and Actions DRAFT SUBMITTAL 08/09/23 Policies Description Require Right-of-Way consistent with the Ultimate Roadway Plan for future Al infrastructure needs, to be superseded by any approved schematic plan that has P, C been approved by the agency with jurisdiction on a roadway. A2 Require right of way at intersections for turn lanes for a minimum of 200' from P B the intersection consistent with Table 4.2. Update the Transportation Design and Construction Standards to include cross A3 sections to match the ultimate roadway plan right-of-way and add context P, C, D, T sensitive urban street sections for application in Mixed-Use Greenfield and Large Lot Zoning Districts. A4 Add streetscape and landscaping standards to the DACS for street beautification D, S on City streets. AS Develop requirements for when alternative street design may be used in the D, T DACS. A6 Update collector street requirements in the City Code. C. D A7 Update collector street design in the DACS for both primary collectors and C, D neighborhood collectors. AS Present the Safety Action Plan to council for consideration of safety related goals. S, D Projects Descrip tion B1 Incorporate shared use paths into arterial project construction with connections P T to trails that cross these facilities. B2 Implement short-term and long-term intersection improvements recommended B in Table 6.1 and 6.2. Determine which projects to be implemented from the McNeil and Sam Bass B3 corridor studies as part of CIP development process S, D, B B4 Submit safety projects identified in the Safety Action Plan to CAMPO for S, T consideration in the regional SS4A Safety Action Plan. B5 Implement high priority roadway capacity projects. B Round Rock Transportation Master Plan Chapter 6:Conclusions and Actions 1 81 '� D RAFT SUBMITTAL 08/09/23 Programs Act ion # Description Pl• • • Cl Evaluate effectiveness of microtransit program after initial deployment to T, D determine appropriate transit services in the City. C2 Continue to invest in technology for active management of the transportation B S system, including building communications and ITS infrastructure. C3 Complete an update of the 2018 Roadway Impact Fee study and assess collection D rates with City Council. C4 Evaluate the high injury network on a regular basis, approximately every 2-3 years. S C5 Develop a way to report on safety progress in the City based on crash trends and S, D project progress. C6 Determine if any high priority projects are good candidates for grant funding D through TxDOT, CAMPO, or IIJA programs and submit projects, if appropriate. ///82 1 Chapter 6:Conclusions and Actions A Appendix Round Rock Transportation Master Plan Appendix �� • V) m ail • • L 4--J C: V) Lie) 4-) 0 C)- E N ELn 0 c) r� 00 D- m .� O Q r- c cn r ^ O V 1 (N M N LI) N J O un 00 ~ � F— w Other Transportation Concern 11.4% Congestion Issue 25.3% Maintenance Issue 4.1% Safety Issues 44.8% Trail Network Issue 14.4% Teas C:ushea Stone 1 Po" � • 1t: eras• O.- - O — , 1M ^0110ers Park p 1.. •a Blvd �v ld SekHer" � tto 1. � eek 0* �•�f..': .1a• i;� :�F � nt h I ( t 171 I Meister Ln Question BasedSurvey Response.,- *Total Please select your age range: Under 18 I 4 18 to 29 _ 30 to 44 45 to 59 60 to 74 75 or older - Prefer not to answer t 8 0 100 200 300 400 14 Which of the following statement(s) describe your relationship to the City of Round Rock (check all that apply)? I live in Round Rock I work in Round Rock I attend school in Round Rock , 38 1 attend school outside of Round Rock I 6 1 live outside of Round Rock . 41 1 work outside of Round Rock _ I own a business in Round Rock . 43 1 own a residential property in Round Rock I own a non-residential property in Round Rock I 13 0 250 500 750 1,000 Based on the graphic below please select the area you live in. A � 1 2 3 4 Other ' 19 door 0 100 200 300 400 Question Based Survey Pesponse *TotalP- •• - 94 Which of the following describes your occupation? I work full-time I work part-time 58 1 am a student , 11 I do not work . 25 1 am retired Prefer not to answer . 24 Other Answers , 17 0 250 500 750 W 0 On a typical work day, how long is your commute? None- Work from home Less than 10 minutes 10-20 minutes 20-30 minutes 30-40 minutes Longer than 40 minutes 0 50 100 150 200 What mode of transportation for you primarily use for your commute? Personal Vehicle (Car) Bicycle I 6 Walk I 7 Rideshare Service ' 5 Public Transportation I 4 Other Answers , 17 0 250 500 750 Question Based Survey Response *Total •- •• •• If feasible would you choose a different mode of travel to work? Yes No 0 100 200 300 400 0 transportation amp carpool Publicexpress drive increaser etri raiIbuild buses subway rideshare — infrastructure metro transit bicycle bike tracks If so what scooter u S round e-bike tram biking walk p mode would walking light � e rocommuter cycling shuttle austin train station you consider workclose safe car going anything using? taxes trolley existing rock though transport great sidewalks Does your employer allow work from home flexibility? Yes, I work from home most of the time Yes, I work a flexible schedule No, I work outside the home 0 100 200 300 Question Based Survey Pesponse *Total Written Survey Responses:A How often do you work from home? ■Never Rarely ■Sometimes Often ■Always Sunday _ Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday - Friday Saturday - 0 200 400 600 OM How often do you use the following modes of transportation? ■Never Sometimes ■Often Only for Recreation Personal Vehicle I Biking , Walking Transit I 0 250 500 750 1,000 On average, how many personal trips, not related to work, do you make per day on a typical week day? 0to2 3to4 S or more 0 100 200 300 400 500 Question Based SurveyPesponse II''I *Total WrittenResponses: •• II' Which of the following destinations would you like to be able to walk to from your home (check all that apply)? Trails Parks Schools Commercial Centers Downtown Other Residential Neighborhoods None of the Above - OtherAnswers ■42 0 250 500 750 MM -14 heb bars ave shops roce rwalking redbid park near traffic deli library rides walmart ride small old settlers train walk l k love university store coffee Other transit pedestrians trails stops lightrail Scott Answers: bikes creekstoreslive neighborhood pups ssidewalk kalahari areas white commercial dug bus nice events sidewalks restaurants dogs a ound g reat Question Based Survey Pesponse *Total Written Survey P- .. •• Which of the fol lowi ng desti nations would you like to be able to bike to from your home (check all that apply)? Trails Parks Schools Commercial Centers Downtown Other Residential Neighborhoods None of the Above Other Answers ■ 34 0 200 400 6C traffic connect body ride trail fa I IIke roads residential transittrain work local fields safe coffee good centers Other athletic library place currently small ave Answers: park breakfast outside commuter rail sidewalks gift bus 9 goods brushy boutique commercial unrestricted fewer lightrail stops public cities station grocery rock hwy via shop routes shops creek round elderly home downtown stores university towns areas Question Based Survey Response *Total '- •• •• Which of the following destinations would you like to be able to walk to from your place of work (check all that apply)? Trails III Parks Schools Commercial Centers Downtown Other Residential Neighborhoods None of the Above Other Answers -32 0 100 200 300 400 ON I 1 0 expensive everywhere convenient stations grocery ride rock goods home round ruseu,ns shop station restaurant buses anywhere historical lightrail lunch park time bus outside dining walk a USt I rl place Other town trying restaurants stops Answers: transit na food train head non boutique commercial work coffee cultural located breakfast e:nployer around far literally medicalstores small -pass near se gift centers local within trails Question • Survey Pesponse *TotalResponses: •• Which of the following destinations would you like to be able to bike to from your place of work (check all that apply)? Trails Parks Schools Commercial Centers I'I Downtown Other Residential Neighborhoods None of the Above Other Answers 31 0 100 200 300 400 ON -IN ride dining stops train centers lanes cultural bus historical via goor k ds towns distance located wrock expensive shop near a u st i n anywhere home breakfast employer coffee away gift far round lightrail Other g station connectior biking small place bikeAnswers: commercial within town mass know leading non cities rail r prefer museums boutique transit restaurants local everywhere medical food downtown park buses convenient Question Based Survey Response, Survey'Total Written ■- •• •• Please rank the following transportation project priorities in order of most to least important to you: ■Ranked 1 Ranked 2 ■Ranked 3 Ranked 4 ■Ranked 5 Pedestrian & Bicycle Facilities Increasing Commuting Options Equity Safety New Road Connections Repairing/Maintaining Existing Facilities Reducing Congestion Planning for New Developments Safe Routes to Schools Aesthetics& Landscaping Lighting 0 250 500 750 Question Based Survey Pesponse *Total Written - '- •• A The following intersections have been identified by the City as having the most congestion. Please rank this list in order of most important to least important to you: li ■Ranked 1 Ranked 2 ■Ranked 3 Ranked 4 ■Ranked 5 AW Grimes&Old Settlers Gattis School &AW Grimes Gattis School & Red Bud I McNeil &CR 172/Oakridge I McNeil & IH35 I Old Settlers& Mays Old Settlers and Sunrise CR 110 & University Blvd CR 110& Red Bud CR 110& Limmer Loop 0 250 S00 7SC Priority Pyramid Activity Respondents were asked to review the categories included below and rank them from • • in a pyramid to show what they felt was most Not • • ries could be • LARGEPPO Investing in a couple of larger projects that have a . . INGstronger impact Projects that make n the city easier to navigate(ex: parking v Prioritizing projects signs,trail maps) .n a that reduce congestion by adding travel lanes Ir,..� (ex:road widening i0m • �■ ■� projects) Prioritizing the NNECTIVITY,To construction of ne • • roads to increase A• ReducingSAFETY 741 crashes • connectivity • through safer design • • • practices(ex: kk reducing speeds or new striping) Constructing more sidewalks and other amenities like CH ♦ Investing in the benches for aesthetics of streets pedestrians to better fit local 0 _ character(ex: A) ' I landscapingIF TPAI LS enhancements) Expanding the existing trail POO network Investing money back into existing roads that need maintenance ♦ QUICK Investing in more small-scale projects IF 0 O that take less time{I • Prioritizing special �I projects that enhancethe Investing in projects ADDRESSING downtown area that promote GROWTH economic opportunities or align with the Comprehensive Plan I I Priority Pyramid Activity *Total Priority Pyramid Pesponses: 53 Please rank the following categories based on what you feel should be a priority for the City of Round Rock. Traffic Flow Safety Connectivity Trails Maintenance Addressing Growth Pedestrians Large Projects Downtown Small but Quick Character Wayfinding 0 2.5 5 7.5 10 Average ranked score from all responses Appendix B Round Rock Transportation Master Plan Appendix I CITY OF SAM BASS & MCNEIL ROUND RD CORRIDOR STUDIES ROCK TRANSPORTATION MASTEP PLAN APRIL 2023 DRAFT DOCUMENT •.' "fix- �r. dna 1 EXIT 25" .•.:. L �.- -E. cedar Par -I. 3 ROU n +c •n31' "� Transportation Master Plan • • Round Rock TABLE OF CONTENTS 4 8 14 1 . INTRODUCTION 2 . PROCESS & 3 . CORRIDOR WHAT ISA METHODOLOGY RECOMMENDATIONS CORRIDOR STUDY? PROCESS SAM BASS RD WHAT IS THE ROUND PUBLIC RECOMMENDATIONS ROCK TMP? ENGAGEMENT MCNEIL RD ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS METHODOLOGY 0 L INTRODUCTION ROUND ROCK TEXAS �4 .s.. �-'t".. w'w •�' it ��r�3.. .. _ i — .rte. _ �; •t'.V ,-. ' s Y� rte• •. - �- r cedar Park _ �� -=� _±. �' `11.1!!..• - +.w w :3 4 -- r - a ;' 1 ti.. .'tl�•F ' INTRODUCTION WHAT IS A CORRIDOR STUDY? A Corridor Study is a planning project that involves an analysis of an existing street to develop strategies and actions that enhance all modes of mobility and create a healthy relationship between the roadway and nearby land uses. Corridor studies are used to: • - lop Define • F operational Consolidate and acceptable rp deficiencies control access levels of access and promote • • • • • • - • • • points efficiency Q Determine Promote AZ transportation system needs B • support • • • - surrounding • - • • corridor land Corridor studies are an effective tool for assessing existing conditions, developing a preferred future condition, and can offer interim fixes for transitioning corridors as they change. As part of the updated TMP, the city chose to study two major arterials, Sam Bass Rd from IH 3S SBFR to Wyoming Springs Dr and McNeil Rd from South city limits to Blair Dr, due to the growth of the city and the ROW constraints of these roads. WHAT IS THE ROUND ROCK TMP? Figure 1: 2017 TMP Network Map The Round Rock Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Ultimate Roadway Networ is a long-range mobility plan that identifies the � City's future transportation projects over the next 22 -"•� a'.;o,�.,.. years (Figure 1). The 2023 updated TMP is slated toTrwWrl at ion incorporate the recommendations from recent plans that were created in the last five years such as the Round Rock 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the 2022 Transit Development Plan. In addition to these new s --- plans, the City also added the Safety Action Plan and two corridor studies as new items for analysis. Figure 2 below shows a timeline of the 2023 TMP's development and the Sam Bass & McNeil Rd Corridor Studies. r A. Figure 2: Transportation Master Plan & Corridor Study Timelines 2022 2023 TMP PHASE I TMP PHASE II TMP PHASE III CORRIDOR STUDIES PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT t _ . 77 ,r .,. . t I } - .. *:fit,,.M '-,w..•. � ___•.<. PROCESS & METHODOLOGY ROCK I _"_b. raosWs: q• i ._ 1431 ' r"+.'_. " +lam:�"ev� �_r _,.f�rt�., i..'MJ►�'_ �,���:-I�r vi'�!'�',.�`.�`+..'� , f•�y ,�'�.s. "•� _ �, .+.c:.. ' PROCESS & METHODOLOGY CORRIDOR STUDY PROCESS The corridor studies of Sam Bass Fid and McNeil Rd were conducted during Phase II of the 2023 TMP. The primary goal of the corridor studies is to improve the overall safety and traffic flow of the Sam Bass and McNeil corridors through a data-driven analysis. To carry out this analysis, the process below was followed: Analyzed existing issues using data provided by the city Conducted field observations to develop preliminary recommendations Confirmed corridor recommendations based on safety and operational analysis Presented draft recommendations to the public online and at neighborhood meetings Finalized recommendations and documentation PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT The public engagement platform Social Pinpoint was a vital tool utilized throughout all phases of public engagement. Social Pinpoint allows for the creation of online public engagement tools and catalogs the results from these activities allowing for efficient data analysis. There were two phases of public engagement during the process: the citywide and the corridor studies. The second phase of public engagement consisted of a map survey and a written survey similar to the first phase. The difference being these surveys were scaled down to the corridors of Sam Bass Rd and McNeil Rd. The map survey, hosted through Social Pinpoint, allowed participants to place comments on a map where they could see potential improvement or provide feedback on proposed projects. The written surveys for the corridors asked participants about their levels of support for various proposed safety and traffic improvements. In addition to the surveys, neighborhood meetings were held for residents and stakeholders who lived or operated along the corridors. In total, there were 117 comments on the map survey and 295 on the written surveys. In the written surveys, approximately 2/3rds of the public were in support of the proposed recommendations with half agreement and half strong agreement. Figures 3-5 below show summary results from the written surveys and Exhibit 1 on page 11 shows a heat map of comments received on the corridor study areas. Figure 3: Question 4 Survey Figure 4: Question 5 Survey Figure 5: Summary Results for All Results Results Recommended Improvements "Overall how would you rate "Overall, how would you rate "Please rate your opinion of the TRAFFIC CONGESTION today TRAFFIC SAFETY along..." proposed improvements:" along..." SAM BASS RD? SAM BASS RD? 9 o Q LULU Fa w LL U •� Ow < Q N Z �`. � Z • > Z w w > LU U .• • .% L MCNEIL RD? MCNEIL RD? 4% Strongly in Favor In Favor Neutral Opposed Strongly Opposed EXHIBIT 1 : PUBLIC COMMENT HEAT MAP Source: Socia! Pinpoint map survey comments ;gen d *rt-e" Dense Ced ark N t r �7' Austin AL-Aft Y �9 Pflu it ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY OPEPATIONAL ANALYSIS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS Operations at an intersection are important to the overall performance and experience for vehicles. Intersections should operate under conditions with good traffic flow and also where congestion and delay are limited. Roadway geometry, traffic control, signal timings, and traffic volumes are all factors in determining the Level of Service and delay at an intersection. Intersection capacity results are listed in terms of Level of Service (LOS). LOS is a qualitative term describing operating conditions a driver will experience while traveling on a specific roadway during a specific time interval. It ranges from A (very little delay) to F (long delays and congestion). LOS D is typically considered the target LOS for design and evaluation purposes for the City of Round Pock. Table 1 outlines the LOS thresholds based on average vehicle delay. Table 1: Definition of Level of Service Average Control Delay per Vehicles Level of (seclveh) Description Service Signalized Unsignalized No delays at intersections with continuous flow traffic. <_ 10 (A) <_ 10 (A) Uncongested operations; high frequency of long A & B _ _ gaps available for all left and right-turning> 10 and < 20 (B) > 10 and < 15 (B) g p g g traffic; no observable queues. Moderate delays at intersections with satisfactory to C > 20 and <_ 35 > 15 and <_ 25 good traffic flow. Light congestion; infrequent backups on critical approaches. Increased probability of delays along every approach. D > d <_ > 25 and <_ 35 Significant congestion on critical approaches, but Lintersection functional. No long-standing lines formed. Heavy traffic flow condition. Heavy delays probable. E > 55 and <_ 80 > 35 and <_ 50 No available gaps for cross-street traffic or main street turning traffic. Limit of stable flow. Unstable traffic flow. Heavy congestion. Traffic moves in F > 50 forced flow condition. Average delays greater than one minute highly probable. Total breakdown. The acknowledged source for determining overall intersection capacity is the current edition of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). The corridor intersections were analyzed based on average stop-controlled delay for signalized or unsignalized intersections using the Synchro 11TM software, which utilizes the HCM procedure to calculate LOS. AM and PM peak hour LOS analyses were completed for each corridor intersection. Synchro reports are provided in the Appendix. THOROUGHFARE OPERATIONS Operations are also important along a thoroughfare and between traffic-controlled intersections as they measure the capacity and congestion on a roadway segment. The roadway classification, number of lanes, and traffic volumes are all important factors in determining the operations along a thoroughfare. The thoroughfare capacity analysis utilizes peak hour directional volumes and per lane directional capacities of the roadway to evaluate the traffic demand. This analysis was completed using LOS criteria outlined by the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO). The traffic condition criteria are based on the volume-to-capacity ratio for traffic volumes and roadway capacity. Figure 6 provides a description of this criterion as it applies to thoroughfare facilities. An "Acceptable" operating condition means the facility is operating with stable Figure 6: Traffic Condition Criteria for Thoroughfare Analysis or near free flow and allows the majority of drivers to navigate in a comfortable environment. A "Failing" operating V/C Ratio 0.00 0.65 1.00 condition indicates the approximate capacity of the roadway has been met ?nffic Conditions Acceptable Tolerable • or exceeded and forced or breakdown flow is occurring. A "Tolerable" operating condition is approaching unstable flow V = Peak Hour Directional Volume (vehicles per hour) with speeds slightly decreasing while C = Per Lane Directional Capacity vehicles perhour volumes slightly increase. SAFETY ANALYSIS A safety analysis was performed throughout each corridor to mitigate crashes through infrastructure improvements and improve pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Crash data from the Crash Records Information System (CRIS) was utilized in the analysis along with crash modification factors (CMFs) from the CMF Clearinghouse. Each safety recommendation takes crash rate, existing intersection conditions, and potential infrastructure improvements into consideration. CORRIDOR RECOMMENDATIONS ROUND ROCK TFXA5 « L- Cedar ParR AW r. ^ `a0 . vs w • .,.�.�... ..1 NOW - .. •;fir:. �- . »� as 1513 ' CORRIDOR RECOMMENDATIONS SAM BASS RD RECOMMENDATIONS The Sam Bass Road corridor limits are from Wyoming Springs Drive to IH-35 Southbound Frontage Road (SBFR), which is approximately 2.19 miles in length. Sam Bass Road is a 2-lane undivided facility from Old Settlers Boulevard to Galloping Road, and a 4-lane undivided facility from Galloping Road to IH-35 SBFR. The posted speed limit along the corridor is 35 mph and is classified as a 4-Lane Enhanced Facility on the 2017 TMP. The existing land use along the study corridor is mostly small-scale neighborhood commercial (Figure 7). After conducting existing field observations, four intersections along the corridor were selected for additional operational and safety analysis: A. Creek Bend Boulevard (Signalized) C. Hairy Man Road (All-way Stop Controlled) B. Chisholm Trail Road (Signalized) D. Old Settlers Road (Two-way Stop Controlled) Figure 7: Sam Bass Rd Existing Land Use & Study Intersections -71 ........... (uJrNrrt bull Uw M til. .f.+ }� ♦'•'� MA Fank •• ,. , EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE Table 2: Existing Intersection Level of Service Existing LOS was calculated using AM the criteria in the Operational PM Peak Analysis Methodology section Intersection D- , D- , to determine the existing intersection and thoroughfare Old Settlers Blvd S9 F 100+ F capacity throughout the corridor. This existing conditions analysis Creek Bend Blvd 29 C 25 C utilized the road's current lane configurations, traffic volumes, Woods Blvd/Hairy intersection traffic control, Man Rd 26 D 41 E and signal timings to model operations as close to field Chisholm Trail Rd 24 C 38 D conditions as possible. Table 2 outlines the intersection capacity Table 3: Existing Thoroughfare Capacity Results results for the key intersections along Sam Bass Road. _ •mmmm Table 3 outlines the Sam Bass mw®mm® Road thoroughfare capacity analysis in existing conditions. EB 600 1 732 9.22 424 0.71 Numbers in red represent Old Settlers Boulevard W B 600 1 187 0.31 279 0.47 locations along the corridor where Creek Bendd traffic operations are considered Boulevard failing. Tota 1 1200 2 919 0.77 703 O.S9 E B 600 1 474 0.79 541 0.90 Creek Boo Boulevard IMPROVEMENTS to Woods WB 600 1 442 0.74 475 0.79 Boulevard After field conditions were review Total 1200 2 916 0.76 1016 0.85 and existing data was analyzed, there are twelve recommendations EB 600 1 516 0.86 611 1.02 for the Same Bass Road corridor Woods that are divided into operational Boulevard to WB 600 1 431 0.72 539 0.90 and safety improvements. Chisholm Trail Tota 1 1200 2 947 0.79 1150 0.96 OPERATIONAL REC • • • In order to improve LOS at the intersections and provide adequate capacity throughout the corridor, it is recommended to make the following updates: OLD SETTLERS BLVD INTERSECTION Figure 8: Old Settlers Blvd Intersection Aerial The intersection is currently stop controlled along the northbound approach while Old Settlers All Boulevard is free flowing. The intersection also currently meets the volume thresholds to warrant a signal, using Warrant 3: Peak Hour of the Manual on i Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Figure 8 shows existing field conditions at the intersection. r +� OInstall a traffic signal (Meets Warrant 3 �F conditions) - Improve overall delays and LOS + �� and provide safer turning conditions at each - approach. Channelize the eastbound right-turn lane - �r i Channelization reduces delay and improves vehicular safety at the intersection. Figure 9: Proposed Roundabout Design for Woods © Add a median to divide northbound approach Blvd/Hairy Man Rd - Provides separation from each approach and st; turning vehicles onto Sam Bass Road. WOODS BLVD/HAIRY MAN RD INTERSECTION �vnavos¢o ua val f.'T.�mavasco uuox . T The intersection is currently all-way stop controlled ,;�rpi and within primarily residential area. All approaches r � � ' P Y _- are designated as a left/through/right turn lane besides the Woods Boulevard approach where it is a dedicated left and through/right turn lane. Figure 9 outlines the roundabout schematic and ' geometry that is recommended at the intersection. T Install a roundabout (does not warrant a traffic signal) - With heavy volumes at each approach, it will provide decreased delays and improved safety at all approaches. �'"- CHISHOLM TRAIL INTERSECTION The Chisholm Trail and Sam Bass Road intersection is mostly commercial land uses and is a signalized intersection. The signal runs with permitted-protected phasing at each approach, with dedicated left-turn lanes throughout. © Implement protected left-turn phasing - Increases safety for left-turns and provides Figure 10: Sam Bass Cross Section Changes phases for optimized signal performance. 0 Construct a median to prevent westbound lefts Existing Cross Section • into the shopping center driveway - Prevents queueing in the middle of the coordinated signals and prevents potential left-turn crashes into the shopping center. SAM BASS ROAD FROM OLD SETTERS 15 ,5 ° Sitlewalk Urrve lane Dnve lane Sidewalk BOULEVARD TO MEADOWS DRIVE This section of Sam Bass Road is currently a two-lane proposed Cross Section undivided section and passes through residential and commercial land uses. Modify cross section to a 3-lane undivided section with a shared use path - Increases overall capacity of the roadway while decreasing Drive lane Center turn lane Drive lane Stlewalk the delay and providing safe left-turn movements throughout the corridor (Figure 10). SAFETY • • • In the effort to reduce and prevent future crashes and improve overall safety throughout the corridor, it is recommended to implement the following: HERMITAGE DRIVE INTERSECTION This intersection is located near commercial developments but serves as an outlet to Sam Bass Road for many residential neighborhoods. The Hermitage Drive approach provides a dedicated left and right-turn lanes with a crosswalk. Upgrade the existing illumination at the Hermitage Drive intersection - Increases visibility for pedestrians, cyclists, and vehicles and will provide safer operating conditions that will reduce the potential for crashes. MEADOWS DRIVE INTERSECTION Figure 11: Sam Bass Rd from Westside Ln to Clark St This intersection is located near commercial developments and also serves as an outlet to Sam Bass Road for a residential neighborhood. The Meadows Drive approach provides a shared left/through/right lane and no crosswalk is currently striped. OUpgrade the existing illumination at the Meadows Drive intersection - Increases visibility for pedestrians/cyclists and r vehicles and will provide safer operating conditions that will reduce the potential for crashes. Add a striped crosswalk to the northeast leg - Will provide a clear path for pedestrians to cross in addition to added visibility for motorists when approaching the intersection. I SAM BASS ROAD FROM WESTSIDE LANE TO CLARK STREET This section of Sam Bass Road is a two-lane undivided roadway with Figure 12: IH-35 SBFR Intersection primarily commercial land uses in the area. Figure 11 shows the aerial of the curved section of roadway. Realign the horizontal curve to have a larger radius between �. Westside Lane and Clark Street - Increases the sight distance while traveling along the curve and increases the safety of vehicles. - ` r: IH-35 SOUTHBOUND FRONTAGE ROAD INTERSECTION *� This intersection is currently signalized and is part of the IH-35 & Sam Bass Road interchange. Figure 12 shows the aerial of the intersection. ® Stripe out an inside westbound receiving lane to prevent through movements from the triple left approach lanes at the IH-35 ' intersection - The added striping will provide more clear direction At,-,vr vA for vehicles and which lanes to use and prevent crashes from unconventional lane configurations. RECOMMENDATIONS • . Based on recommendations described in the previous section, Exhibit 2 on page 20 presents all the recommendations for Sam Bass Road, between Wyoming Springs Dr and IH-35 Southbound Frontage Road. EXHIBIT 2: SAM BASS RD RECOMMENDATIONS MAP Old Settlers Blvd Intersection: �� ♦♦♦♦ SP`s g`v OInstall a traffic signal (meets Warrant 3 ♦♦�.�_. 1 conditions) Woods/Hairy Man Intersection: © Install a roundabout does not ©Channelize eastbound right-turn lane � '� ( warrant traffic signal) ©Add median to divide northbound _ approach , 04111,, y^0w \ ,,Iftft Oar Proposed Cross Section � Old Settlers to Meadows Dr: ,` • •♦♦� ♦ •♦♦♦♦♦ OModify cross section to 3U ♦♦♦ ♦♦ with shared use path (see ♦♦�♦♦ diagram) ♦ , r iiNiii�HIM- 11 _9: Hermitage Intersection: OUpgrade existing illumination Static DISCLAIMER: Z Any • • - on w y - approval by I • • • may • - superseded by larger investments to the 35 1 corridor. 1 it ,♦ Meadows Dr Intersection: ♦ JO Upgrade existing ♦♦ illumination ,♦♦ Add a striped crosswalk to ♦♦ the northeast leg Chisholm Trl Intersection: ♦♦, ♦♦ .©Implement protected left turn ♦ ♦ phasing ♦♦ 1Nestside Ln to Clark St: O Construct median to prevent ♦ �' ealign curve to have a westbound lefts into the ♦, larger radius shopping center driveway �♦ ,♦, IH-35 Intersection: ♦, y �h' Stripe out inside westbound ♦, � receiving lane to prevent ----� through movements from triple left ,,♦, _ween, timmmP lump MODELING PESULTS UNMITIGATED CONDITIONS Table 4: Unmitigated Intersection Level of Service The unmitigated analysis represents the future impacts to AM Peak _ak • ur intersection and thoroughfare D- , D-ve h) vet , capacity if no improvements are made. Existing lane configuration, old Settlers Blvd 100+ F 100+ F signal timing, and intersection control were combined with the Creek Bend Blvd 31 C 26 C existing traffic volumes grown at 20% over 20 years. Table 4 Woods Blvd/Hairy 48 E 80 F outlines the intersection capacity Man Rd results and Table 5 outlines the thoroughfare capacity analysis in Chisholm Trail Rd 23 C 40 D unmitigated conditions. MITIGATED CONDITIONS Table 5: Unmitigated Thoroughfare Capacity Results The mitigated analysis includes AM Peak Hour I PM Peak • ur all the recommendations to mmm��=��M intersections and the corridor as previous sections ; EB 600 1 809 1.35 472 0.79 outlined in the p Old Settlers of the report. Existing traffic Boulevard to volumes grown at 20% over 20 Creek Bend WB 600 1 187 0.31 279 0.47 years were analyzed throughout Boulevard the corridor. Table 6 outlines the Total 1200 2 996 0.83 751 0.63 intersection capacity results and Table 7 outlines the thoroughfare EB 600 1 558 0.93 637 1.06 Creek Bend capacity analysis in Mitigated Boulevard W B 600 1 466 0.78 507 0.85 conditions. Both tables are found to Woods on page 23. Boulevard Total 1200 2 1024 0.85 1144 0.95 Numbers shown in red represent failing conditions, while numbers EB 600 1 854 1.42 791 1.32 in green represent acceptable Woods traffic conditions. Boulevard to WB 600 1 500 0.83 626 1.04 Chisholm Trail Tota 1 1200 2 1354 1.13 1417 1.18 Table 6: Mitigated Intersection Level of Service SUMMARY AM Peak Hour Overall, delay is anticipated to increase from existing to the IntersectionD- • D- - • future unmitigated scenario as traffic volumes increase. The Old Settlers Blvd 9 A 12 B unmitigated analysis estimates that two intersections will operate Creek Bend Blvd 31 C 27 C at failing LOS in both the AM and PM peak hour. Woods Blvd/Hairy 12 B 14 B In the Mitigated analysis, the Old Man Rd Settlers Boulevard and Woods Chisholm Trail Rd 21 C 40 ID Boulevard /Hairy Man Road intersections are all anticipated Table 7: Mitigated Thoroughfare Capacity Results to operate at acceptable LOSD or better in both peak hours. AM Peak •ur PM Peak -Hour— The recommendations outlined . .. ®®®® previously in the report provide substantial benefits to traffic EB 850 1 809 0.95 472 0.56 congestion, delay, and LOS. Old Settlers Boulevard to The capacity of Sam Bass Road Creek Bend WB 850 1 187 0.22 279 0.33 is anticipated to approach Boulevard failing V/C thresholds as volumes Total 1700 2 996 0.59 751 0.44 increase and with no capacity improvements. Overall, with Creek Bend EB 850 1 558 0.66 6S/ 0.75 future volume growth along Sam Boulevard Bass Road, increasing the section to Woods WB 850 1 466 0.55 507 0.60 from 2-lane undivided to 3-lane Boulevard undivided will increase capacity Total 1700 2 1024 0.60 1144 0.67 and decrease V/C ratios for each segment of roadway. EB 850 1 854 1.00 791 0.93 Woods Figures 13 and 14 on page 24 Boulevard to WB 850 1 500 0.59 626 0.74 display the modeling results of Chisholm Trail the unmitigated and mitigated Total 1700 2 1354 0.80 1417 0.83 scenarios. Figure 13: Sam Bass Unmitigated LOS Results n y Legend o `arc Somerset Park \ Intersection LOS ResultsCD GEM to c Thoroughfare Capacity Results �0 C Fs Fire Station #9 9v�y Slave Burial o Oak Springs Grounds h's,� Me Park Cemet °3 aT � Brushy Creek p °� B csro�ho�r_r.004hond Q-a I N lairy--Ma\ s' Brushy Creek P 0 5001,000 2,000 Green bell-CreekSide US Feet Brushy Creek j laZ% Figure 14: Sam Bass Mitigated LOS Results m a` Legend �e �a Somerset Park e�F Intersection LOS Results 1\a \> ' o�% (� 10 Thoroughfare Capacity Results � T � A e CIO ek -- Fire Station #9 ` �s Slave Burial Oak Springs Grounds Me Park Cemet 3 Brushy Creek PBrushyeeCrek 0 S001,000 2,000 o ed Greenbelt-C�eek�ide-''=":-- 1.15 Feet a„ - i — ^�• 1°1,, Brushy Creek j�aZ% u MCNEIL RD RECOMMENDATIONS CONTEXT McNeil Road is a 4-lane undivided facility throughout the corridor. Located in southeast Round Rock, the McNeil Road corridor study limits are from the City Limits to Mays Street, which is approximately 2.42 miles in length. Existing land uses in the area are mostly residential with the Round Rock Greenbelt extending off of CR 172 (Figure 15). The posted speed limit is 45 mph, from the City Limits to CR 172 and 40 mph from CR 172 to I1-1-35. This section of McNeil Road is classified as a 6 Lane Enhanced Facility according to the Round Rock Transportation Master Plan. Five intersections along the corridor were selected for additional operational and safety analysis. The following outlines the corridor intersections and traffic control: A. CR 172 (Signalized) D. Round Pock W Drive (Signalized) B. Deep Wood Drive (Two-way Stop Controlled) E. McNeil Road & IH-35 Interchange (Signalized) C. St Williams Street (Signalized) Figure 15: McNeil Rd Existing Land Use & Study Intersections 7 i . O O . ! O rl1 1 0111MA tam UW, � .dib0al i SnVk-Fam►r *3*d4L, _twoFamly O*K° i+ /•, 1 fmntK[ul �1 .rte'., •� i! N f:—:llr�euaa+w LkiftR ppu4AV47. EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE Table 8: Existing Intersection Level of Service Analysis was performed using the criteria AM Peak Hour • in the Operational Analysis Methodology - Delay Delay section to determine the existing intersection capacity throughout the corridor. The existing conditions analysis was performed Oakridge Dr 2 A 2 A using the current lane configurations, traffic volumes, intersection traffic control, and CR 172 is B is B signal timings to model operations as close to field conditions as possible. Due to right- Deepwood Dr 29 D 32 D of-way constraints, it was determined that widening McNeil Road would not be a feasible alternative. The possibility of a lane reduction St. Williams St 3 A 2 A was also screened out in the pre-analysis phase due to a preliminary evaluation of the Round Rock W Dr 12 B 13 B volumes and coordination with City staff. Therefore, a detailed thoroughfare capacity IH-3S SBFR 30 C 31 C analysis was not performed. Table 8 outlines the intersection capacity results for McNeil IH-35 NBFR 48 D 40 D Road. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS After the existing conditions of the corridor were reviewed and the data was analyzed, 20 recommendations for McNeil Road were identified and divided into operational and safety improvements. OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS In order to improve LOS at the intersections and provide adequate capacity throughout the corridor, it is recommended to construct improvements at the following locations: CR 172 NEW ALIGNMENT The new alignment of CR 172 is proposed to connect with the existing intersection at Oakridge Drive and remove the current CR 172 alignment, just east of Oakridge Drive. Figure 16 on page 27 shows the new alignment. ORemove the current CR 172 traffic signal and close the connection - the new alignment will remove a signalized intersection along McNeil Road and prioritize the major road volumes and reduce delay. 26 CITY OF POUND POCK TPANSPOPTATION • • PLAN © Create a new CR 172 Figure 16: CR 172 Realignment Diagram alignment that continues a south from Oakridge Drive - ; `y,, PlIhOVE EXIST PAVEMENT It will match with Oakridge PROP PAVEMENT Drive to provide a single SOP SHARED PATH signalized intersection PROP R[CHT-OF-WAY instead of two along McNeil �•, �- F , -, Road and reduce delays ``a -► ' -o , � © Build new CR 172 alignment to be four lanes with a median and shared-used paths on both sides - the i new alignment will increase the capacity with the added AKRI median and improve the overall V/C ratio of the \ roadway. OAKRIDGE DRIVE & CR 172 INTERSECTION � < ` .r►. _ ... .a_V.i.-ate w-. - -. . The intersection is currently signalized and does not Figure 17: Oakridge Dr & CR 172 Intersections Aerial provide turn lanes at any of the approaches. This McNeil Road connection is primarily used for residential neighborhoods to the north. Figure 17 shows the aerial i of the intersection. © Remove the current signal 4014 at CR 172 with new road F #' _ alignment - the new • alignment will remove aNO signalized intersection along McNeil Road and prioritize '" the major road volumes and reduce delays. • , © Add left-turn lanes for all directions - the Figure 18: Deep Wood Dr Aerial addition of turn lanes will increase the overall capacity at the intersection and reduce delays and queueing along the high-volume McNeil ._ Road. DEEP WOOD DRIVE INTERSECTION The intersection is currently two-way stop controlled on Deep Wood Drive and McNeil Road free flowing. r , In addition, no turn lanes are provided along McNeil Road. The access is primarily for residential land uses to the north of the intersection. Figure 18 shows the aerial of the intersection. OInstall a new traffic signal the intersection s r warrants a traffic signal which will provide reduced delays and queueing along the southbound approach. �" • OAKRIDGE DRIVE & DEEP WOOD DRIVE INTERSECTIONS Figure 19: Oakridge Dr & Deep Wood Dr Aerial These signals will be located approximately 1,400 feet from each other when completed (Figure 19). Each intersection is a primary residential access point to W McNeil Road. ` © Coordinate signal timings with new Deep Wood " '.' �`�; �� ,_ "�� " -- "� ` •► , Drive signal together to allow for better traffic flow - Coordinated signals allow for the flow .,�i- - � t.-•. y .- . z� of vehicles to travel through the intersections more efficiently and reduced queueing and delays along each approach. "` � ' �, "; _ _.��, �. fir. F �` �. , � IH-35 INTERCHANGE The interchange is currently timed with a three- _7v� L phase timing plan, with the addition of rail • "4,.W�)N, preemption with the railroad passing through the interchange. The interchange provides access to the IH-35 frontage roads and commercial development 28 CITY OF POUND POCK • P • • along McNeil Road. Figure 20 shows the aerial of the Figure 20: IH-35 Interchange Aerial interchange. ORe-time signals to a four-phase timing plan - the four-phase signal timing will allow for �- the clearance of vehicles from between the , intersections and provide adequate green time , at each approach. • i. IH-35 SOUTHBOUND FRONTAGE ROAD INTERSECTION OAdd an eastbound right-turn green arrow to run 'w�ti �, # when railroad crossing arms are blocking the north and east legs of the intersection - this ', . provides at least one movement to proceed 1� ' safely through the intersection while the rail - ,• , preemption and railroad operations prevent ~ other movements and reduces delay at the .. eastbound right movement. s4 �; "�► Add southbound right-turn green arrow to rune when railroad crossing arms are blocking the � ti south leg of the intersection - this provides at `� # least one movement to proceed safely through the intersection while the rail preemption and railroad operations prevent other movements and reduces dela at the southbound right r !' Y g movement. SAFETY ANALYSIS In the effort to reduce and prevent future crashes and improve overall safety for all modes throughout the corridor, it is recommended to implement the following: ROUND ROCK WEST GREENBELT EXTENSION The Round Rock West Greenbelt is a network of pedestrian and bicycle facilities that runs throughout the City of Round Rock and currently ends at McNeil Road, near CR 172. Figure 21 on page 30 shows the aerial of the existing pedestrian facilities. Extend pedestrian facilities to connect Figure 21: Round Rock West Greenbelt Aerial Round Rock West Greenbelt to La Frontera development - this will provide safe facilities for development to the south of McNeil Road to connect to the existing network which will • reduce the potential for pedestrian/bicycle crashes. ^� ® Add protected pedestrian crossing at Oakridge F Drive & CR 172 signal - provides a safe and well- i marked crossing for pedestrians and cyclists which will reduce the potential for crashes. DEEP WOOD DRIVE INTERSECTION f/ As stated previously, this intersection is currently << two-way stop controlled, where the Deep Wood + }' Drive approach is a shared through/left/right pP lane. In addition, there are pedestrian sidewalks on the NW and NE corners that run along the north side of Figure 22: Round Rock Dr W Aerial McNeil Road. The access is primarily for residential land uses to the north. Figure 18 on page 28 shows r : the aerial of the intersection. f ® Enlarge corner clip at NE corner to improve sight distance (need to acquire ROW) - increasing the sight distance by providing additional coverage along the NE corner 'r provides much safer turning conditions for vehicles exiting Deep Wood Drive and thus reducing the potential for crashes. 4 ^� 0 Install crosswalk markings and ADA compliant directional ramps - increase the visibility path for pedestrians and cyclists and reduce potential vehicle conflicts at crossings while also providing increased accessibility for all modes. ROUND ROCK W DRIVE INTERSECTION This intersection provides a southbound left and right turn lane. However, no other turn lanes are provided. Pedestrian sidewalks are provided at the NE and NW corners and along the north side of McNeil Road. Figure 22 shows the aerial of the intersection. ® Refresh crosswalk markings - updated crosswalk markings provide enhanced view of pedestrian facilities and reduces the potential for pedestrian and bicycle crashes. Add pedestrian refuge island with addition of channelized right-turn lane (current city project) - this reduces the distance a pedestrian requires to cross the Round Rock W Dr approach and allows a safer crossing experience and thus reducing potential right-turn vehicle crashes. Install ADA compliant directional ramps - providing increased accessibility for all modes and increasing connectivity to other pedestrian facilities. Provide pedestrian signal heads and APS push buttons - improves the pedestrian view of signal phasing and increases the user capability of crossing the Round Rock W Dr approach for all users, thus increasing safety operations overall. IH-35 & RAILROAD INTERSECTION The railroad crosses through the interchange found at IH-3S & McNeil Road. Pedestrian facilities are provided on north side of the interchange, while providing a railroad crossing at the southbound frontage road leg. Figure 20 on page 29 shows the aerial of the crossing area. 0 Improve pedestrian crossing over the railroad tracks at NW corner of the intersection - provides a smoother transition to the other pedestrian crossing and facilities while improving safe railroad crossings for all modes. CORRIDOR WIDE Examine sight distance issues for the following two-way stop-controlled neighborhood intersections along the corridor - increasing sight distance allows for reduced potential of crashes based on safer turning conditions. • West Messick Loop • East Messick Loop • St. Williams Street • St. Williams Avenue PECOMMENDATIONS MAP Based on recommendations described in the previous section, Exhibit 3 on page 32 presents all the recommendations for McNeil Road, between the City Limits to IH-3S. EXHIBIT 3: MCNEIL RD RECOMMENDATIONS MAP Corridor-Wide: Rock West Greenbelt Extension: akridge & Deep Wood Intersections: Extend edestrian facilities to connectro Coordinate signal timings with new Deep • • issues P Wood signal together to allow for better • .• _ two-way •• Rock West Greenbelt to La Frontera controlled _ • •• ••• development traffic flow intersections . • the ®Add protected pedestrian crossing at corridor Oakridge/CR 172 signal kip„ Oakridge/CR 172 Intersection: OUpgrade current signal at CR 172 with new road alignment .. ©Add left turn lanes for all directions f 2017 TMP Project -Add westbound right turn lane 00"010 '.0010 �� '' Nei\ ''•��� v ,'0010 00 0 0 00,010 chishofm k' CR 172 New Alignment: Deep Wood Dr Intersection: -- — --.. Remove current CR 172 traffic signal and ' O Install new traffic signal lose connection Note About Cross Section: reate new CR 172 alignment that continue ® Enlarge corner clip at NE corner • Existing four lane cross outh from Oakridge Dr to improve sight distance (need to section to remain due to guild new CR 172 alignment to be four lanes acquire ROW) right-of-way constraints with a median and shared-use paths on bot Install crosswalk markings&ADA and traffic demand along sides compliant directional ramps ��, the corridor o IH-35 North- &South-bound Frontage Road Intersections: QRe-time signals to a four-phase timing plan Southbound Frontage Rd Signal Only:, OAdd eastbound right-turn green arrow to run when railroad crossing arms are blocking north and east legs of the intersection Add southbound right-turn green arrow to run when railroad crossing arms are blocking south leg of the intersection UP- O MOO* r�m i r Round Rock W Dr Intersection: IH-35 & Railroad Intersection: ® Refresh crosswalk markings Improve pedestrian crossing over railroad tracks at 0 Add pedestrian refuge island with addition of northwest corner channelized right turn lane (current city project) Install ADA compliant directional ramps Provide pedestrian signal heads and APS push IH-35 DiSCLAIMER: buttons Any improvements IH-35 will - . - approval by TxDOT and may be superseded by larger investments to the 3S o� corridor. Y, , CITY OF • D POCK TRANSPOPTATION MODELING RESULTS UNMITIGATED CONDITIONS Table 9: Unmitigated Intersection Level of Service The unmitigated analysis represents the impacts to the intersection and capacity Peak Hour operations if no improvements were made, intersection Delay ® .- . - while traffic volumes increased. Existing lane configuration, signal timing, and intersection Oakridge Dr 2 A 2 A control were combined with the existing traffic volumes grown at 20% over 20 years. CR 172 24 C 20 B Table 9 outlines the intersection capacity results. Deepweod Dr S3 F S7 F MITIGATED CONDITIONS St. Williams St 3 A 2 A The mitigated analysis includes all the aLund Rock W Dr 13 B 14 B recommendations to intersections and the corridor as outlined in the previous sections of IH-3355 SBFR 51 D 50 D the report. Existing traffic volumes grown at IH-351 -62 E 49 D 20% over 20 years were analyzed throughout 1d... the corridor. Table 10 outlines the intersection capacity results for the mitigated scenario. Table 10: Mitigated Intersection Level of Service SUMMARY AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Overall, delay is anticipated to increase from Intersection •- - Delay existing to the future unmitigated scenario as traffic volumes increase. The unmitigated wftll�ridge Dr 32 C 44 D analysis (Figure 23 on page 35) estimates that one intersection will operate at failing LOS CR 172 - - - in both the AM and PM peak hour and one intersection will operate at failing LOS in the Deepwood Dr S A 9 A AM peak hour. St. Williams St 2 A 2 A The mitigated analysis (Figure 24 on page 35) is anticipated to reduce overall delay or Round Rock W Dr 12 B 14 B maintain the same LOS for all intersections IH-35 SBFR 44 D 34 C except for the McNeil Road & Oakridge Drive/ CR 172 intersection. The recommendation IH-35 NBFR 52 D 38 D to realign CR 172 to Oakridge Drive and consolidate the two intersections into one increases the overall volume and increases overall delay. However, the delay along McNeil Road decreases with fewer signals impeding the coordination of traffic flow at the major approaches. The recommendations outlined previously in the report provide substantial benefits in traffic congestion, delay, and improving LOS. Figure 23: McNeil Unmitigated LOS Results Tr Legend . Lake CreeF Intersection LOS Results Greenbelt-S Downtown McNeil Rd � C Tejas Dr rn --------MC.Nei1-Rd___. _ D - 2 -orf Christopher Ave M � Cactus Dr_-- J 0 S00 1,000 2,000 t EI gucks{clri or / US Feet C alley of Allens Boots Figure 24: McNeil Mitigated LOS Results n m Tr Legend o QO Lake Creeh Intersection LOS Results / Greenbelt- Downtown McNeil Rd M Tejas Dr--.___-. — McNeii_Rd - _ --- Christopher Ave ds� s Cactus Dr ckskln pr / 0 S00 1,000 2,000 t EI eu ;',� US Feet ' / Allens Boots Chi �_ m Valley Dr �' Transportation Master Plan • • Pound Pock ROUND ROCK TEXAS Appendix C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Round Rock Transportation Master Plan Appendix �� I CITY O SAFETY ACTION PLAN ROUND TRANSPORTATION MASTEP ROCK PLAN APRIL 2023 DRAFT DOCUMENT r `. exit 256 Cedar Park - 3 _T_di�:n'-`�'eFr.s'L-.K.:.�'_iu► `'_}s.�'t�k+.�Si�i+.�i�.r"s�1F.c���i► - Transportation Master Plan • Round Rock TABLE OF CONTENTS 4 24 1 . INTRODUCTION 4 . TOP TEN LOCATION RECOMMENDATIONS 10 2 . SAFETY ACTION PLAN 54 OVERVIEW S . ACTION PLAN 18 3 . CITYWIDE HIGH - INJURY NETWORK INTRODUCTION ROUND ROCK TEXAS EXIT 256: w. ♦'k S rj Cedar Park - ` _ 13 Round Rock INTRODUCTION WHAT IS A SAFETY ACTION PLAN? A Safety Action Plan (SAP) should identify priorities for roadway safety, as well as provide transparency and accountability to the public. The resulting SAP should lay out actionable, measurable strategies that emphasize design and policy solutions aimed at reducing citywide traffic fatalities and injuries. While every SAP is unique to the agency that creates it, there are nine components that make up the best practices for creating a well rounded action plan: 1. Political Commitment such as passing a resolution in City Council to commit to a common goal of reducing crashes 2. Multi-Disciplinary Leadership by uniting departments together when discussing action 3. Action Plan in the development and adoption of the SAP 4. Equity by ensuring measurable benchmarks to provide safe transportation options for all road users S. Cooperation & Collaboration by setting shared goals that work toward coordination and accountability 6. Systems-Based Approach that focuses on improving the built environment with projects and policies 7. Data-Driven Analysis that does not ignore reliable data available nationwide on safety best practices 8. Community Engagement that educates and involves the public through outreach 9. Transparency to hold the City accountable to its commitment and strengthens trust from the community The City of Pound Rock's 2023 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Update includes a safety analysis that follows the industry best practices of addressing fatal and injury-related crashes by targeting the roads with the highest rate of crashes. The methodologies used to identify these roads, as well as the recommended safety improvements, are identified in this Safety Action Plan (SAP) for the City to implement after the adoption of the TMP. This section will break down the introductory elements of this process by defining how the SAP relates to the TMP, and examining the crash history of Round Rock over the past five years. WHAT IS THE ROUND ROCK TMP? The Round Rock Transportation Master Plan (TMP) is a long-range mobility plan that identifies the City's future transportation projects over the next 22 years. The 2023 updated TMP is slated to incorporate the recommendations from recent plans that were created in the last five years such as the Round Rock 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the 2022 Transit Development Plan. In addition to these new plans, the City also added the Safety Action Plan and two corridor studies as new items for analysis. Figure 1 below shows a timeline of major milestones in the 2023 TMP Update's development. Safety is an overall theme integrated in every component of the TMP. In the first public engagement phase, safety was one of the project priorities (nearly 45% of all comments on the interactive map) presented to the public for them to rank in order of importance. Additionally, a map survey was used to gather input on multiple existing deficiencies throughout the City's network, with safety being one of the comment types available. This survey data, along with other existing data sources was analyzed together in a safety section of the State of the City report, concluding the first phase of the TMP project as a whole. Phase II of the TMP kicked off the development of the SAP with data-driven analysis to develop the high- injury network, identify countermeasure for 10 high crash areas, and finally create an action plan of next steps for implementation. The documentation of the SAP concluded at the end of Phase II, which was part of the recommendations presented to the public in Phase III. The final action plan created in the SAP was then integrated back into the TMP's full project list in the final document. Figure 1: Transportation Master Plan & Safety Action Plan Timelines 2022 2023 TMP PHASE I TMP PHASE II TMP PHASE III SAFETY ACTION PLAN PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT CRASH HISTORY The data used to develop this SAP for the City of Round Rock was pulled from the Crash Records Information System (CBIS) Database for January 1, 2017 - December 31, 2021. It is important to note that this data was filtered to exclude crashes that occurred on the main lanes of IH-35 and SH-45. During this study period, 12,845 crashes were reported by local police, 894 of which resulted in a fatality, serious injury, or minor injury (KABs). At the regional scale, the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) is tracking safety data through their newly published dashboard as of March 2023. A chart of the crash trends by severity over this study period are shown in the graph below. A heat map of all crashes and the locations of fatalities in the city during this study period is shown in Exhibit 1 on Page 9. Based on this map, it can be concluded that the highest crash clusters are in the University Blvd east of I1-1-35, US-79 Between IH-35 and AW Grimes, and Gattis School Rd at AW Grimes areas of the City. Figure 2: Crash Totals by Year & Severity (Not Including IH 35 or SH 45) ■ N - No Injury, C - Possible ■ B - Suspected ■ A - Suspected ■ K - Fatal Injury 99 - Unknown Injury Minor Injury Serious Injury 1,505 1,543 1,512 1,500 1,405 AMEN 1,176 1,000 500 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 EXHIBIT 1 : CITYWIDE CRASH HEAT MAP Source: TxDOT CRIS Database (2017-2021) Legend Georgetown x Fatal Crashes Leander x x r � , i Hutto Cedar Park t ` x y xx Austin x X �/ Pflugerville >Iuolq �pql 1'11ouol�ua�ui a60d SAFETY ACTION PLAN OVERVIEW ROUND ROCK TEXAS *Vv . N +� a� exir 256) ` a•jjj Cedar Park d � Roma R SAFETY ACTION PLAN OVERVIEW PROCESS The primary goal of developing the SAP was to use data-driven analysis to identify the Round Rock's High- Injury Network and develop a list of recommended countermeasures to tie back into the TMP project list. To achieve this, the process for developing the SAP can be divided into five steps: 1. Identify the High-Injury Network 2. Determine 10 locations to study 3. Analyze crash history for study locations 4. Identify countermeasures to implement based on crash history S. Present results to stakeholders & identify the action plan Public engagement was also integrated in this process at the beginning and end to gather input before the analysis as well as inform on the final results. The following sections explain in greater detail the results of this public engagement, as well as the methods used in steps 1-4 of the SAP process. PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT SOCIAL PINPOINT Social Pinpoint is an online community engagement platform and was the primary mode of public engagement utilized in the TMP. The platform allows for the creation of online public engagement tools and catalogs the results from these activities allowing for efficient data analysis. Throughout the public engagement process, two interactive maps, were made available to the public through Social Pinpoint in which participants could place a comment on a map where they could see potential improvement or provide feedback on proposed projects. The two maps consisted of a citywide map and corridor study map that narrowed the scope down to McNeil Rd and Sam Bass Rd. Provided alongside these maps were written surveys that gauged interest in proposed projects, collected demographic information survey respondents, and gave an opportunity to share other comments and feedback. The final activity within Social Pinpoint was the Priority Pyramid in which respondents were asked to review a list of categories and rank them from 1 to 6 on a pyramid to show what they felt was most critical. PUBLIC MEETINGS Figure 4: Priority Pyramid Activity Please rank the following categories based on In-person public meetings were held to correspond with the two phases what you feel should be a priority for the City of of online engagement: the first in October 2022 and the second in Round Rock May 2023. The purpose of these meetings was to provide the public with an opportunity to meet with the city planning team as well as the Traffic consultant team to ask questions, voice opinions, and provide feedback Flow on the progress of the project. RESULTS Safety The first phase of engagement received a total of 959 survey responses between the written survey and the priority pyramid activity and Connectivity a total of 368 comments on the interactive map. The citywide map received a total of 368 comments with "Safety Issues" being by far the most commented category at nearly 45% of all responses (Figure 3). Trails Based on the results of the written survey, safety projects were overall ranked as the second highest priority among respondents only behind Maintenance projects that would reduce congestion. A similar trend is seen in the priority pyramid activity where residents would rank their top 6 mobility priorities. Of the available priorities, safety was ranked second highest Addressing to the participants only after traffic flow (Figure 4). Growth The public comment heat map (Exhibit 2 on page 13) shows the Pedestrians concentrations of public comments that are categorized under "safety". Figure 3: Map Based Survey Responses Large Other Transportation Concern Projects 11.4% Congestion Issue Downtown 25.3% Small but Quick Character Maintenance Issue 4.1% Wayfinding Safety Issues 0 2.5 5 7.5 44.8% Trail Network Issue 14.4% Average ranked score from all responses HOTSPOT: , This hotspot from the map survey represents a desire among the community for signal to be constructed at this intersection. A signal is currently planned for this intersection. "�' 1 ,,' .y ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY . . WHAT IS A HIGH-INJURY NETWORK? A High-Injury Network (HIN) is a geographical area or network of roads, intersections, or other transportation infrastructure that displays a high history of crashes and injuries. High-injury networks often have a range of contributing factors, including high traffic volumes, complex intersections, or a lack of safe infrastructure for pedestrians, cyclists, or other vulnerable road users. Identifying and addressing facilities on the high-injury networks is an important step in improving overall road safety and reducing the number of severe injuries and fatalities resulting from crashes. It is the first step in the data analysis process to identify safety countermeasures throughout the network. Roadway Departure _ (C * 100,000,000) CRASH SEGMENT RATE CALCULATION Crash Rate (V * 365 * N * L) In order to create and identify the HIN, each segment Table 1: Roadway Departure Crash Rate Inputs of roadway was analyzed based on the AADT traffic volumes, segment length, and total crashes. The • • • Description Data Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides Crash Records an equation to calculate the crash rate, in crashes C Total Crashes in Information System Per mile, for a road segment. A model was created Segment (CBIS) in ArcGIS Pro to centralize the process of the crash rate calculation. The model provided the necessary City-Collected Traffic geoprocessing tools to assign crashes to an adjacent Average Annual Counts segment and perform the calculation. The equation V Daily Traffic & on the right was used in the calculation of crashes Volumes (AADT) Traffic Count per mile using crash data from the previous five Database System years (2017-2021). (TC DS) Table 1 explains the components of the equation, N Year Range Calculation a description, and data source. The calculation Length of Segment of the crash segment rate was the initial step in L in Miles GIS Calculation determining the HIN within the City of Pound Pock, along with City staff coordination and input. The Roadway Departure Crash Rates are measured in resulting HIN map is shown in Exhibit 3 on Page 21. crashes per 700 million Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as an industry Standard. TOP TEN STUDY LOCATIONS Once the HIN was identified, the project team examined this list of corridors to choose which ten locations to study further for countermeasure analysis. The resulting list included six corridor segments and four traffic signals that had high rates of severe crashes and were not currently slated for improvements by the City, Counties, or TxDOT. A map and table of these locations can be viewed in Exhibit 3 on Page 23. The following sections describe the process behind identifying countermeasures chosen specifically to address safety issues at these ten study locations. COUNTERMEASURE ANALYSIS Crash Modification Factors (CMFs) are used to apply the potential impact of a particular safety countermeasure by measuring the reductions in crashes. The CMF Clearinghouse Website provides information on CMFs for roadway segments, intersections, interchanges, special facilities, and road networks. The database is funded by the US Department of transportation and managed by the University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center A CMF of less than 1.0 indicates the potential to reduce crashes. A CMF greater than 1.0 indicates the potential to increase the rate of crashes. The selection and application of an appropriate factor can greatly affect the outcome, both positively and negatively. Key factors to consider when selecting and applying CMFs are outlined in the following: 1. Appropriate Context for Applying the Treatment S. Existing Traffic Volumes 2. Unmitigated Impacts 6. Frequency in Light or Weather Conditions 3. Crash Type and Severity 7. Interaction with Nearby Development 4. Contributing Factors and Manner of Collision 8. Estimated Travel Patterns and Distribution The crash type defines the group of crashes that the CMF will apply to. This crash detail provides critical information to select and apply the appropriate CMF in each case. For example, an intersection with no lighting might have 2S crashes occur in the last five years during nighttime. By applying the 'Add intersection lighting' countermeasure that has a CMF of 0.88, this leads to a potential reduction of 12 crashes over a 20-year horizon. Reductions are calculated over a 20-year horizon due to the estimated life cycle of the improvement. In addition to the CMF Clearinghouse website, CMF data was pulled from the California Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM). The LRSM is a supplemental guide with the purpose of providing analysis tools needed to identify locations with roadway safety issues and the appropriate countermeasures. COUNTERMEASURE TOOLBOX A variety of countermeasures were identified as the most likely to reduce crashes within the HIN of the City of Round Rock. Table 2 summarizes these countermeasures as part of the "Toolbox" of CMFs to implement at each of the top ten study locations identified. The ID Number corresponds to the countermeasure's reference number in the CMF Clearinghouse or California LPSM Databases. Each CMF indicates how effective the countermeasure is at reducing crashes while Crash Type identifies the conditions under which the countermeasures will reduce crashes. Table 2: Countermeasure Selection Toolbox Countermeasure Crash Modification . - 1 Factor 144 10% reduction in mean speed (K) 0.68 All 145 10% reduction in mean speed (A,B,C) 0.85 All 146 10% reduction in mean speed (0) 0.90 All 2219 Install raised median 0.29 All 175 Install raised median with marked crosswalk (uncontrolled) 0.54 Bicycle/ Pedestrian 8957 Implement systemic signing and visibility improvements at 0.90 All signalized intersections 4123 Install high-visibility crosswalk 0.60 Bicycle/ Pedestrian 5458 Convert an open median to a directional median 0.43 Left Turn 3019 Install crosswalk on one minor approach 0.35 All 7730 Install left turn flashing yellow arrow signals and supplemental 0.86 Left Turn traffic signs 4211 Increase all red clearance interval 0.80 All Table 2 (Cont.): Countermeasure Selection Toolbox CrashCountermeasure • • • • • - Factor 6095 Improve left-turn lane offset to create positive offset 0.66 All 2252 Replace permissive with protected 0.02 Angle 9916 Modify signal phasing 0.87 All (implement a leading pedestrian interval) 4462 Install intersection lighting 0.88 Nighttime 9404 Convert signal from span wire to mast arm 0.97 All 393 Prohibit left-turns and u-turns with "no left turn and "no 0.28 All u-turn" signs 7669 Install left-turn lane 0.75 All 1637 Increase triangle sight distance (K) 0.44 All 1638 Increase triangle sight distance (A,B,C) 0.63 All 308 Increase triangle sight distance (N,99) 0.89 All S03 Improve signal timing 0.85 All (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation) 5185 Modify access point density Function of density All & AA DT 8428 Improve angle of channelized right turn lane 0.56 All POUNDCITY OF •CK TPANSPORTATION MASTEPPLAN: CITYWIDE HIGH = INJURY NETWORK ROUND ROCK 1 E-XAS t; Cedar Park ' CITYWIDE HIGH - INJURY NETWORK The collision data used to develop the HIN was pulled from the Crash Records Information System (CBIS) for January 1, 2017 - December 31, 2021, for the City of Round Rock's roadway network. The following High- 211 * 76miles Injury Network was developed to identify the roads Of road on the HIN and intersections that have higher rates of crashes when compared to their existing volumes within the city.In total, the Round Rock HIN encompasses 21.76 150 % miles of road, and has a total of 538 KAB crashes (representing over 60% of citywide KABs), and 6 fatal of tota crashes (representing over 46% of citywide fatal citywide crashes). KAB crashes include fatal, serious, and non-incapacitating injuries. Tables 3-4 show the HIN KABs segments and intersections respectively. Table 3: Round Rock High-Injury Network Segments Street - Limits From Limits To Length Segment Rate Avery Nelson College Park Dr A.W. Grimes Blvd 0.39 Yes 3 385 Round Rock Ave Deep Wood Dr N Brown St 1.25 Yes 49 205.8 Double Creek Dr Forest Creek Dr SH 45 WBFR 1.27 Yes 16 75.9 US 79 Georgetown St Sunrise Rd 0.91 Yes 51 71.8 FM 1460 Old Settlers Blvd US 79 1.79 Yes 47 61.8 (A.W. Grimes Blvd) CR 168 S Mays St Greenlawn Blvd 0.65 Yes 15 58.5 (Gattis School Rd) Creek Bend Blvd West End PI Sam Bass Rd 1.30 No 22 339.7 N Mays St 1775' north of 300' north of 1.35 No 12 241.4 Teravista Pkwy Oakmont Dr Table 3 (Cont.): Round Rock High-Injury Network Segments Crash - . ent Street Name Limits FromTo Length (Mi) • • • C Rate University Blvd Chisholm Trail Rd Sunrise Dr 0.86 No 67 162.3 (Future) Greenlawn Blvd Gattis School Rd Dell Way 0.95 No 19 146.2 Chisholm TO Rd 1980' NLof Wolle Round Rock Ave 2.26 No 24 143.9 Georgetown St 575' S of US 79 Austin Ave E 0.6 No 13 136.1 N Mays St Old Settlers Blvd Main St 1.89 No 56 112 Joe Dimaggio Blvd Kenney Fort Blvd US 79 0.28 No 4 105.7 FM 3406 Sam Bass Rd Creek Bend Blvd 0.54 No 21 91.9 FM 3406 IH 35 SBFR IH 35 NBFR 0.37 No 24 89.8 720' southeast Sam Bass Rd of W Old Settlers 75' E of Desert 0.53 No 6 76.9 Blvd Willow Dr Sunrise Rd University Blvd US 79 3.22 No 71 74.1 Bowman Rd IH 35 NBFR Sunset Dr 1.35 No 18 58.1 Table 4: Round Rock High-Injury Network Intersections Old Settlers Blvd Sunrise Rd 13 Red Bud Ln US 79 6 Mays St Main St 3 La Frontera Blvd 145 EBFR 3 I w CITY OF ROUND ROCK TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN: SAFETY ACTION PLAN 21 From the HIN, ten locations (six segments and four intersections) were selected for further study. The selected segments were between 0.22 and 0.35 miles in length. They were chosen for study based on a number of factors including high crash segment rate, high number of injuries/fatalities, and lack of current construction planned to improve conditions. Tables 5-6 show the HIN Top 10 segments and intersections respectively. Exhibit 4 is a visual representation of the Pound Rock HIN Top 10 Locations including locations where a fatal crash occurred. Table 5: Round Rock Safety Action Plan Study Segments Crash Segment ' Street Name Limits From Limits To Length (Mi) I -MM Pate Gattis School Rd Mays St Surrey St 0.22 1 3 34.12 AW Grimes Blvd Plateau Vista US 79 0.21 - 17 178.72 Blvd N Mays St Anderson Ave Bagdad Ave 0.24 - 9 145.83 Round Rock Ave 135 SBFR Brown St 0.25 - 6 139.15 N Mays St Texas Ave Bowman Rd 0.29 - 10 92.62 AW Grimes Blvd Tiger Trail Timberline 0.35 - 7 44.94 Table 6: Round Rock Safety Action Plan Study Intersections Georgetown US 79 1 9 AW Grimes Blvd Old Settlers - 7 Creek Bend Old Settlers - 3 La Frontera Blvd 1 45 EBFR - 2 No Text TOP TEN LOCATION R ECOM ROUND ROCK TFXAc) x jo Sig EXIT �•..1 ��. o� fiTMd Cedar Park - • �RounC Rock �•tT TOP TEN LOCATION RECOMMENDATIONS A) A.W. GPIMES BLVD FPOM E PALM VALLEY BLVD TO PLATEAU VISTA - LVD CONTEXT The section of A.W. Grimes Boulevard from E Palm Valley Boulevard to Plateau Vista Boulevard is 0.21 miles in length and is located in central Round Rock, east of the H.E.B Development. The adjacent area is primarily commercial land uses, with residential areas to the north and south. This roadway section has a posted speed limit of 45 mph accommodate the high volumes of traffic (24,700 vehicles per day). A.W. Grimes Boulevard is a 4-lane divided facility in this section. Pedestrian sidewalks are also provided along each side of the roadway while no bike lanes are within the section limits. SUMMARY STATISTICS CRASH HISTORY There were 157 total crashes on this segment of Light Conditions Primary Manner A.W. Grimes Boulevard between 2017-2021. Of these o 2% of Collision total crashes, 51 resulted in an injury with 17 of them ■ Daylight i 1% being KABs with 0 fatalities. Additionally, 2 crashes 0 Dark, lighted 1. Same involved bicyclists or pedestrians, resulting in 2 0 Dark, not Direction: 54/0 ° injuries. The top primary contributing factors for lighted crashes along this segment were the following: ■ Dusk Dawn 1. Failed to Control Speed (27%) t"s 2. Opposite 2. Failed to Yield Right of Way (19%) Direction: 20% 3. Disregard Traffic Signal (16%) Time of Day 4. Driver Inattention (10%) 012-4 AM �°� 4-8 AM 2. Angle: 20% S. Changed Lane When Unsafe (7%) 8AM-12 PM 0 12-4 PM 4-8 PM � 4. One Motor 8 PM-12 AM Vehicle: 6% RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended to conduct a speed study to determine if a 5 mph speed limit reduction would be appropriate. To reduce potential left-turn crashes in the section, it is recommended to close the hooded left- turn in the median and extend the median north of Plateau Vista Boulevard. Access to this street is being provided alternately by an active construction project to connect Plateau Vista Blvd to Palm Valley Blvd via Phillip Warner Pl. Lastly, to improve pedestrian and bicycle safety, it is recommended to stripe crosswalks at Plateau Vista Boulevard and include pedestrian refuge islands. Table 7 summarizes the recommended CMFs and anticipated benefits for crash prevention over a 20-year horizon. Page 27 summarizes the analysis and safety improvement recommendations for this section of A.W. Grimes. Table 7: Countermeasure Application Results for Location A Countermeasure Total . - Reduced over • - . . . 0.68 Fatal (K) 0 10% reduction in mean speed 0.85 Injury (A,B,C) 31 0.90 Non-Injury (N,99) 42 Install raised median 0.29 All 301 Install raised median with marked crosswalk (uncontrolled) 0.54 Bicycle/Pedestrian 4 A,W. GRIMES ' POUNDPOCK E PALM VALLEY BLVD TO PLATEAU VISTA BLVD SAFETY ACTION PLAN LENGTH: 0.21 MILES I SPEED LIMIT: 4S MPH DAILY TPAFFIC: 24,700 ' KEY MAP CRASH HEAT MAP 04 04. f � ' `o� 19 � _ - .,. r- R raLS -y 'r � .!�:.` 'L�• �. � :.u. �.^r -- _ ` ,. � - • '1 it ifs ->'. �r ' CRASH STATISTICS (2017 - 2021) , RECOMMENDED COUNTERMEASURES Total Crashes: 157 Total KAB 17 Countermeasure Crash Type CMF Crashes: Bike/Ped 2 Total Injuries: 51 Conduct speed study to evaluate speed limit 0.68- Crashes: reduction All 0.90 Total Fatalities 0 (CMF varies based on crash severity) Top Primary Contributing Factors Install raised median with openings at all All 0.29 named streets 1. Failed to Control Speed 27% Evaluate closure of driveway nearest Palm 2. Failed to Yield Right of Way 19°% Valley Blvd on southbound A.W. Grimes Blvd All 0.97 3. Disregard Traffic Signal 16% 4. Driver Inattention -10% S. Changed Lane When Unsafe - 7% CITY OF • POCK TPANSPOPTATION MASTEP PLAN: SAFETY ACTION PLAN 27 B) A.W. GRIMES BLVD FROM TIGER TIQL TO TIMBERLINE DR CONTEXT The section of A.W. Grimes Boulevard from Tiger Trail to Timberline Road is 0.35 miles in length and is located in central Round Rock, west of Chandler Creek Park. The adjacent area is primarily residential with some institutional land uses close by. This roadway section has a posted speed limit of 45 mph to accommodate the high volumes of traffic (24,700 vehicles per day). This segment of A.W. Grimes Boulevard is a 5-lane undivided facility. Pedestrian sidewalks are also provided along each side of the roadway while no bike lanes are within this section of roadway. CRASH HISTORY SUMMARY STATISTICS There were 23 total crashes on this section of A.W. Grimes Boulevard between 2017-2021. Of these total Light Conditions Primary Manner crashes, 12 resulted in an injury with 7 of them Daylight of Collision being KABs with 0 fatalities. Additionally, no crashes Dark, lighted involved bicyclists or pedestrians. The top primary 1. Same contributing factors for crashes along this segment Direction: 30% were the following: 1. Failed to Yield Right of Way (30%) 2. Failed to Control Speed (22%) 1. Angle: 30% 3. Driver Inattention (13%) Time of Day 4. Turned When Unsafe (9%) 4% 12-4 AM !F% i"s 3. Opposite 4-8 AM Direction: 22% 8 AM-12 PM 12-4 PM 4-8 PM 4. One Motor 8 PM-12 AM Vehicle: 18% RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended to conduct a speed study to determine if a 5 mph speed limit reduction would be appropriate. To reduce potential left-turn crashes in the section, it is recommended to install a raised median with left-turn openings at all named streets including the Stony Point High School driveway south of Timberline Dr. Table 8 summarizes the recommended CMFs and anticipated benefits for crash prevention over a 20-year horizon. Page 30 summarizes the analysis and safety improvement recommendations for this section of A.W. Grimes. Table 8: Countermeasure Application Results for Location B • • / Crashes 20- Year Period 0.68 Fatal (K) 0 10% reduction in mean speed 0.85 Injury (A,B,C) 7 0.90 Non-Injury (N,99) 4 Install raised median 0.29 All 65 A.W. GRIMES BLVD POUND POCK TIGEPTPLTOTIMBEPLINE DP SAFETY ACTION PLAN DAI LY TPAFFIC: • • KEY MAP CRASH HEAT MAP • . • v w r. V iaso iaso s h _ f 1460 NAA-iL .r CMD I it P • ,n oA J Z CRASH STATISTICS (2017 - 2021) , RECOMMENDED COUNTERMEASURES Total Crashes: 23 Total KAB 7 Countermeasure Crash Type CMF Crashes: Bike/Ped 0 Total Injuries: 12 Conduct speed study to evaluate speed limit 0.68- Crashes: reduction All 0.90 Total Fatalities 0 (CMF varies based on crash severity) Top Primary Contributing Factors Install raised median with openings at all All 0.29 1. Failed to Yield Right of Way o named streets 30/o 2. Failed to Control Speed 22% 3. Driver Inattention -13% 4. Turned When Unsafe - 9% GATTIS SCHOOL PID FPOM S MAYS CONTEXT The section of Gattis School Road from S Mays Street to Surrey Drive is 0.22 miles in length and is located in central Round Rock, west of Success High School. The adjacent area is primarily commercial land use to the west and transitions to residential to the east. This roadway section has a posted speed limit of 35 mph and daily traffic volume of 21,500 vehicles. This segment of Gattis School Road is a 5-lane undivided facility. Pedestrian sidewalks are also provided along each side of the roadway while no bike lanes are within this section of roadway. CRASH HISTORY SUMMARY STATISTICS There were 60 total crashes on this section of Gattis School Road between 2017-2021. Of these total crashes, Light Conditions Primary Manner 4 resulted in an injury with 10 of them being KABs E Daylight % 2% of Collision with 1 fatality. Additionally, there was 1 crash involving 0 Dark, lighted bicyclists or pedestrians, resulting in 1 injury. The top Dark, not 1. Same primary contributing factors for crashes along this 0 lighted Direction: 53% segment were the following: Dawn 1. Failed to Control Speed (28%) 2. Failed to Yield Right of Way (23%) 2. Angle: 27% 3. Changed Lane When Unsafe (14%) Time of Day 4. Driver Inattention (12%) 012-4 AM 5% o 3. Opposite S. Disregard Traffic Signal (10%) N4-8 AM Direction: 15% 8 AM-12 PM 12-4 PM 4-8 PM �S 4. One Motor 8 PM-12 AM Vehicle: 5% RECOMMENDATIONS A countermeasure for left-turn crashes is to install eastbound hooded left turn at Cushing Park Drive. To reduce all crash types, it is recommended to install a raised median with openings at Dixie Lane and Surrey Drive. It is also recommended to evaluate appropriate signage to be implemented at the southbound approach at Surrey Dr to mitigate southbound right turn/eastbound U turn conflicts. To increase bicycle and pedestrian safety, it is recommended to replace existing crosswalks with high- visibility crosswalks at Mays Street and Surrey Drive intersections. Lastly, it is recommended to provide a buffer for the north side sidewalk where ROW is available to increase bicycle and pedestrian safety. Table 9 summarizes the recommended CMFs and anticipated benefits for crash prevention over a 20-year horizon. Page 33 summarizes the analysis and safety improvement recommendations for this section of Gattis School Road. Table 9: Countermeasure Application Results for Location C Toto/ Crashes 20- Year Period Install high-visibility crosswalk 0.60 Bicycle/Pedestrian 2 Install raised median 0.29 All 170 Convert and open median to a 0.43 Left Turn 18 directional median 'A GATTIS SCHOOL ' POUNDPOCK S MAYS ST TO SUPPEYDP SAFETY ACTION PLAN LENGTH: 0.22 MILES I SPEED LIMIT: 35 MPH I DAILY TPAFFIC: 21,SOO ' KEY MAP CRASH HEAT MAP .Y• .moi � ,� Y t� /V: r .,yam �nI'. �, r i a do I I •F o _ I _ •"lam� � - • C�YI .. _ - Q_ I CRASH STATISTICS (2017 - 2021) , RECOMMENDED COUNTERMEASURES Total Crashes: 60 Total KAB 4 Countermeasure Crash Type CMF Crashes: Bike/Ped Install high-visibility crosswalks at Mays St Crashes: 1 Total Injuries: 10 and Surrey Dr intersections Bike/Ped 0.60 Total Fatalities 1 Install raised median with openings at Dixie All 0.29 Top Primary Contributing Factors Ln and Surrey Dr 1. Failed to Control Speed 28% Install eastbound hooded left turn at Cushing Park Dr Left Turn 0.43 2. Failed to Yield Right of Way 23% 3. Changed Lane When Unsafe —14% 4. Driver Inattention —12% S. Disregard Traffic Signal —10% D) N MAYS ST FPOM ANDEPSON ST TO BAGDAD AVE CONTEXT SUMMARY STATISTICS The section of N Mays Street from Anderson Street to Bagdad Avenue is 0.24 miles in length and is located Light Conditions Primary Manner in central Round Rock. The adjacent area is primarily commercial land uses near Downtown Round Rock. ■ Daylight 5°i° of Collision This roadway section has a posted speed limit of Dark, lightedF 7 35 mph and daily traffic volume of 13,800 vehicles. ■ Darienot 1 . Angle: 60% This segment of Mays Street is a 5-lane undivided. Pedestrian sidewalks are also provided along both sides of the roadway, along with striped street crossings at each intersection. There are no bike 2. Same lanes within this section of N Mays Street. L— Direction: 24% CRASH HISTORY Time of Day There were 90 total crashes on this section of N Mays E12-4 AM 3% 3. Opposite Street between 2017-2021. Of these total crashes, 22 04-8 AM Direction: 10% resulted in an injury with 9 of them being KABs with 8AM-12 PM no fatalities. Additionally, 1 crash involved bicyclists � 12-4 PM or pedestrians, resulting in 1 injury. The top primary contributing factors for crashes along this segment 4-8 PM > 4. One Motor were the following: 8PM-12 AM Vehicle: 6% 1. Failed to Yield Right of Way (40%) 2. Driver Inattention (17%) Table 10: Countermeasure Application Results for 3. Failed to Control Speed (9%) Location D 4. Disregard Traffic Signal (9%) Total S. Backed Without Safety (5%) Countermeasure Reduced ver • - • • Period --IM RECOMMENDATIONS Install raised median 0.29 All 255 A countermeasure to reduce all crash types and improve turning vehicle safety, it is recommended to add a raised median with openings at Main Street, Liberty Avenue, Austin Avenue, and Anderson Street. Table 10 summarizes the recommended CMFs and anticipated benefits for crash prevention over a 20-year horizon. Page 35 summarizes the analysis and safety improvement recommendations for this section of N Mays Street. A N MAYS ST POUND POCK AND E PSO N ST TO BAGDAD AVE SAFETY ALENGTH: 0.24M ILES I SPEED LIMIT: 35 MPH CTION DAILY TPAFFIC: 13,800 KEY MAP CRASH HEAT MAP wynwvn ^ 4,17 CJ L , , ' CRASH STATISTICS (2017 - 2021) , RECOMMENDED COUNTERMEASURES Total Crashes: 90 Total KAB 9 Countermeasure Crash Type CMF Crashes: Add raised median with openings at Main St, All 0.29 Bike/Ped 1 Total Injuries: 22 Liberty Ave,Austin Ave, &Anderson St Crashes: Total Fatalities 0 Top Primary Contributing Factors 1. Failed to Yield Right of Way 40% 2. Driver Inattention 17% 3. Failed to Control Speed _ 9% 3. Disregard Traffic Signal _ 9% S. Backed Without Safety . 5% MAYS • M TEXAS AVE • BOWMAN CONTEXT The section of N Mays Street from Texas Avenue to Bowman Rd is 0.29 miles in length and is located in west-central Round Rock, adjacent to the YMCA. The adjacent area is primarily commercial with residential development just to the east. This roadway section has a posted speed limit of 45 mph and daily traffic volume of 20,400 vehicles. This segment of Mays Street is a 5-lane undivided facility. Pedestrian sidewalks are provided on each side of the roadway and no bike lanes are present within this section of N Mays Street. CRASH HISTORY SUM MARY STATISTICS There were 85 total crashes on this section of N Mays Street between 2017-2021. Of these total crashes, 20 Light Conditions Primary Manner resulted in an injury with 10 of them being KABs with 2% 0 of Collision no fatalities. Additionally, 1 crash involved bicyclists E Daylight 2% leo or pedestrians, resulting in 1 injury. The top primary Dark, lighted 4 contributing factors for crashes along this segment lighted, not 1. Angle: 40% were the following: 0 1. Failed to Yield Right of Way (25%) ® Dusk Dawn 2. Disregard Traffic Signal (20%) 2. Same 3. Failed to Control Speed (15%) 41 0 Direction: 33% Time of Day 4. Driver Inattention (13%) 4% 12-4 AM S. Changed Lane When Unsafe (7%) 3. Opposite 4-8 AM Direction: 22% 8 AM-12 PM E 12-4 PM 4-8 PM � 4. One Motor 8 PM-12 AM Vehicle: 5% RECOMMENDATIONS A countermeasure with the potential to reduce all crash types, it is recommended to conduct a speed study to determine if a speed limit reduction would be appropriate. In addition, it is recommended to install a raised median with openings at Bowman Road, Braddock Lane, and Texas Avenue. To increase bicycle and pedestrian safety, it is recommended to stripe a crosswalk on the southern leg of the intersection at the Texas Avenue signal. Additionally, it is recommended to stripe crosswalks at the Bowman Drive signal and upgrade to ADA compliant directional ramps for a potential reduction in pedestrian crashes. Table 11 summarizes the recommended CMFs and anticipated benefits for crash prevention over a 20-year horizon. Page 389 summarizes the analysis and safety improvement recommendations for this section of N Mays Street. Table 11: Countermeasure Application Results for Location E Countermeasure Total Crashes - • - • over / - • P- • • 0.68 Fatal (K) 0 10% reduction in mean speed 0.85 Injury (A,B,C) 12 0.90 Non-Injury (N,99) 26 Install raised median 0.29 All 242 Install crosswalk on one minor 0.35 All 42 approach N MAYS ST POUND POCK TEXAS AVE TO BOWMAN SAFETY ACTION PLAN LENGTH: 0.29 MILES I SPEED LIMIT: 4S MPH DAILY TPAFFIC: 20,400 KEY MAP CRASH HEAT MAP ED __. ��a � �; _:�/' q... �� � Asa. �`_ • — r . ' CRASH STATISTICS (2017 - 2021) , RECOMMENDED COUNTERMEASURES Total Crashes: 85 Total KAB 10 Countermeasure Crash Type CMF Crashes: Conduct speed study to evaluate speed limit Bike/Ped reduction All 0 090 . Crashes: 1 Total Injuries: 20 (CMF varies based on crash severity) .90 Total Fatalities 0 Install raised median with openings at All 0.29 Top Primary Contributing Factors Bowman Rd, Braddock Ln,&Texas Ave 1. Failed to Yield Right of Way 25% Stripe southern crosswalk at Texas Ave signal Bike/Ped 0.35 2. Disregard Traffic Signal 20% 3. Failed to Control Speed 15% 4. Driver Inattention 13% S. Changed Lane When Unsafe _ 7% POU • AVE • TO N BROWN CONTEXT The section of Round Rock Avenue from IH-35 Northbound Frontage Road to N Brown Street is 0.25 miles in length and is located in downtown Round Rock. The adjacent area is primarily commercial near Downtown Round Rock. This roadway section has a posted speed limit of 35 mph and daily traffic volume of 9,500 vehicles. This segment of Round Rock Avenue is a 5-lane undivided facility. CRASH HISTORY SUMMARY STATISTICS There were 37 total crashes on this section of Round Rock Avenue between 2017-2021. Of these total Light Conditions Primary Manner crashes, 9 resulted in an injury with 6 of them being 3% of Collision KABs, resulting in 9 total injures and no fatalities. Daylight Additionally, no crashes involved bicyclists or Dark, lighted lczll�pedestrians. The to primary contributing factors for Dark, not 1. Same p p p y g � lighted Direction: 46% crashes along this segment were the following: 1. Failed to Yield Right of Way (29%) 2. Failed to Control Speed (24%) 6 2. Angle: 32% 3. Drive Inattention (17%) Time of Day 4. Disregard Traffic Signal (14%) 3% ° E12-4 AM t"s 3. Opposite 5. Changed Lane When Unsafe (7/°) E4-8 AM Direction: 19% 8 AM-12 PM 12-4 PM E 4-8 PM 4. One Motor 8 PM-12 AM ,,' Vehicle: 3% RECOMMENDATIONS A countermeasure with the potential to reduce all crash types, it is recommended to add a raised median with openings at N San Saba Street and Brown Street. It is recommended to modify signal timing to remove the left-turn yield on green for the intersection of Round Rock Avenue and IH-35 NBFR. To reduce potential U-turn crashes, it is recommended to install a "No U-Turn" sign along Round Rock Avenue at Brown Street. Additionally, it is recommended to close the intersection at Liberty Ave and extend the right-turn only lane onto N Brown St. This closure would mirror the intersection closure at N Brown St the north, and would eliminate all future crashes from cars intersecting at this location. Table 12 summarizes the recommended CMFs and anticipated benefits for crash prevention over a 20-year horizon. Page 41 summarizes the analysis and safety improvement recommendations for this section of Round Rock Avenue. Table 12: Countermeasure Application Results for Location F . . - Tot.Tota/ Crashes - . - . Countermeasure over • - . . . Install raised median 0.29 All 106 Prohibit left-turns and u-turns with "no left turn' and "no 0.28 All 14 u-turn" signs Install left turn flashing yellow arrow signals and supplemental 0.86 Left Turn 5 traffic signs Modify access point density 0.97 All <1 ROUND SAFETY ACTION PLAN LENGTH: 0.25 MILES I SPEED LIMIT: 3S MPH DAILY TPAFFIC: 9,SOO KEY MAP CRASH HEAT MAP x�N 10 s, A4 /4/ } 1 p LLJ n. n i` x Sop CRASH STATISTICS (2017 - 2021) , RECOMMENDED COUNTERMEASURES Total Crashes: 37 Total KAB 6 Countermeasure Crash Type CMF Crashes: Add raised median with openings at N San Bike/Ped Saba St and Brown St N All 0.29 Crashes: 0 Total Injuries: 9 Install a No U-Turn sign along Round Rock U-Turn 0.28 Total Fatalities 0 Ave at Brown St Top Primary Contributing Factors Modify signal timing to include left turn yield Left Turn 0.86 1. Failed to Yield Right of Way 29% on green 2. Failed to Control Speed 24% Consider closure of Liberty Ave intersection All 0.97 3. Driver Inattention 17% 4. Disregard Traffic Signal 14% 5. Changed Lane When Unsafe - 7`X' FPONTEPA PID : SH 45 FPONTAGED INTEPCHANGE CONTEXT The interchange of La Frontera Road & SH 45 Frontage Road is located in southwest Round Rock, west of IH-35 and east of Loop 1 Toll Road. The adjacent area is generally commercial land uses with residential developments nearby. The interchange also provides pedestrian crosswalks and curb ramps at each approach crossing. La Frontera has a posted speed limit of 30 mph, daily traffic volume of 20,470 vehicles, and is also a 4-lane facility. SH 45 Frontage Road has a posted speed limit of 50 mph, daily traffic volume of 25,700 vehicles, and is a 6-lane facility (3-lanes on each frontage road). CRASH HISTORY SUMMARY STATISTICS There were 28 total crashes at this interchange between 2017-2021. Of these total crashes, 6 resulted Light Conditions Primary Manner in an injury with 2 of them being KABs with no 3% of Collision fatalities. Additionally, no crashes involved bicyclists Daylight s�io or pedestrians. The top primary contributing factors 0 Dark, lighted 1. Same for crashes at the interchange were the following: Dark, 1 0 Direction: 38% 1. Failed to Control Speed (21%) ® Dusk 2. Driver Inattention (21%) 3. Failed to Yield Right of Way (17%) 2. Angle: 36% 4. Disregard Traffic Signal (12%) Time of Day 1777 S. Changed Lane When Unsafe (8%) E12-4 AM 3% 2"3 3. Opposite E 4-8 AM F"� P Direction: 18% 8 AM-12 PM 12-4 PM 38% 26% 4-8 PM t''r 4. One Motor 8 PM-12 AM Vehicle: 8% RECOMMENDATIONS To improve signal operations and reduce timing related vehicle crashes, it is recommended to retime the intersection signals to modify the dilemma zone timings. It is also recommended to increase pedestrian clearance interval timings, which will provide more time for pedestrians to enter and exit the crosswalk safely. On the southern leg of the intersection, it is also recommended modify the median opening to provide hooded left-turns due to the close proximity to the intersection. Table 13 summarizes the recommended CMFs and anticipated benefits for crash prevention over a 20-year horizon. Page 44 summarizes the analysis and safety improvement recommendations for the interchange of La Frontera Road & SH 45 Frontage Road. Table 13: Countermeasure Application Results for Location G Total Countermeasure . - over 20-Year Period Increase all red clearance 0.80 All 28 interval Modify signal phasing (implement a leading 0.87 All 14 pedestrian interval) Convert an open median to a 0.43 Left Turn 27 directional median 'A LA FRONTERA & SH 45 FRONTAGEROAD POUND POCK LAFPONTEPA: SPEED LIMIT: 30 MPH DAILY TPAFFIC: 20,470 SAFETYACTION PLAN SH4S FRONTAGE PD: SPE ED LIMIT: SO MPH DAILY TPAFFIC: 2S,700 ' KEY MAP , ^CRASH HEAT MAP ' CRASH STATISTICS (2017 - 2021) , RECOMMENDED COUNTERMEASURES Total Crashes: 34 Total KAB 2 Countermeasure Crash Type CMF Crashes: Retime signal to modify dilemma zone All 0.80 Bike/Ped 0 Total Injuries: 7 timings Crashes: Increase pedestrian clearance interval Total Fatalities 0 timings Bike/Ped 0.87 Top Primary Contributing Factors Install a northbound hooded left turn at 1. Failed to Control Speed 21% median opening between apartment Left Turn 0.43 1. Driver Inattention21/o o driveways 3. Failed to Yield Right of Way 17% 4. Disregard Traffic Signal 12% S. Changed Lane When Unsafe - 8% OLD • CONTEXT The intersection of Sunrise Road & Old Settlers Boulevard is located in central Round Rock, east of IH-35 and west of A.W. Grimes Boulevard. The adjacent area is generally residential with commercial developments near the intersection. The intersection provides pedestrian crosswalks and curb ramps at each approach crossing, except for crosswalk striping at the SW corner. Sunrise Road has a posted speed limit of 40 mph, daily traffic volume of 15,843 vehicles, and is a 5-lane undivided facility. Old Settlers Boulevard has a posted speed limit of 45 mph, daily traffic volume of 31,800 vehicles, and is a 5-lane undivided facility. CRASH HISTORY SUMMARY STATISTICS There were 52 total crashes at this intersection between 2017-2021. Of these total crashes, 10 resulted Light Conditions Primary Manner in an injury with 5 of them being KABs with no 2% of Collision fatalities. Additionally, no crashes involved bicyclists Daylight 6% or pedestrians. The top primary contributing factors EDark, lighted 1. Same for crashes at the intersection were the following: Dark, not lighted Direction: 58% 1. Failed to Yield Right of Way (34%) Dawn 2. Failed to Control Speed (15%) 3. Driver Inattention (10%) 2. Angle: 33% 4. Changed Lane When Unsafe (5%) Time of Day S. Disregard Traffic Signal (4%) 012-4 AM 3. Opposite While not represented in the 2017-2021 crash data 0 4-8 AM Direction: 7% analysis, it should be noted that a fatal crash 8AM-12 PM involving a pedestrian occurred at this intersection 0 12-4 PM in 2022. 04-8 PM � 4. One Motor 8 PM-12 AM Vehicle: 2% RECOMMENDATIONS To reduce the potential for signal timing related crashes, it is recommended to upgrade signal timings for the off-peak period. It is also recommended to re-work the intersection configuration to remove channelized right-turn lanes and add positive left-turn offset on all approaches. The majority of the crashes at the intersection involve left-turning vehicles and offsetting the turn lanes will provide more sight distance for safe maneuvers. In order to improve safety conditions for bicyclists and pedestrians, it is recommended to stripe the crossing at the SW corner of the intersection. Additionally, ADA compliant ramps should be installed at all crossings to improve the pedestrian and bicyclist safety at the intersection. Table 14 summarizes the recommended CMFs and anticipated benefits for crash prevention over a 20-year horizon. Page 47 summarizes the analysis and safety improvement recommendations for the intersection of Sunrise Road & Old Settlers Boulevard. Table 14: Countermeasure Application Results for Location H . - Totai Crashes - . - . Countermeasure . over - . . . Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, 0.85 All 31 yellow, or operation) Improve left-turn lane offset to 0.66 All 71 create positive offset Install crosswalk on one minor 0.35 All 135 approach SUNRISEOLD SETTLERS POUND PODAILY TPAFFIC: ]S,843 SAFETY ACTION PLAN OLD SETTLEPS: SPEED LIMIT: 45M PHI DAILY TPAFFIC: 31,800 KEY MAP CRASH HEAT MAP Cmgmrwn � � '.0000N fft T ._ •.� o CRASH STATISTICS (2017 - 2021) , RECOMMENDED COUNTERMEASURES Total Crashes: 52 Total KAB 5 Countermeasure Crash Type CMF Crashes: Upgrade signal timing for the off-peak All 0.85 Bike/Ped 0 Total Injuries: 10 period Crashes: Re-work intersection to remove channelized Total Fatalities 0 right-turn lanes (long-term) and add positive All 0.66 Top Primary Contributing Factors left-turn offset on all approaches 1. Failed to Yield Right of Way 349,16 Stripe crossing at southwest corner (short-term) Bike/Ped 0.35 2. Failed to Control Speed 15% 3. Driver Inattention —10% 4. Changed Lane When Unsafe - 5% S. Disregard Traffic Signal - 4% OLD BLVD INTEPSECTION —1) CPEEK BEND BLVD & CONTEXT The intersection of Creek Bend Boulevard & Old Settlers Boulevard is located in west Round Rock, east of Wyoming Springs Drive and west of IH-35. The adjacent area is primarily residential, comprising of single- family developments. The intersection provides pedestrian crosswalks and curb ramps at each approach crossing. Pedestrian side paths or sidewalks are provided on the north leg of Creek Bend Boulevard and also the northwest corner of Old Settlers Boulevard. Creek Bend Boulevard has a posted speed limit of 30 mph, daily traffic volume of 11,541 vehicles, and is a 4-1ane divided facility at the intersection. Old Settlers Boulevard has a posted speed limit of 50 mph, daily traffic volume of 23,100 vehicles, and is a 4-lane undivided facility. CRASH HISTORY SUMMARY STATISTICS There were 63 total crashes at this intersection between 2017-2021. Of these total crashes, 19 resulted Light Conditions Primary Manner in an injury with 11 of them being KABs with no 0 Daylight 8% of Collision fatalities. Additionally, 1 crash involved bicyclists or pedestrians, resulting in 1 injury. The top primaryDark, lighted osite contributing factors for crashes at the intersection Dghted°t Dir1. Oecp on: 43% were the following: •% 1. Failed to Yield Right of Way (39%) 2. Disregard Traffic Signal (21%) 2. Same Direction: 24% 3. Driver Inattention (12%) Time of Day 4. Failed to Control Speed (12%) 12-4 AM 3% S. Changed Lane When Unsafe (5%) � 4-8 AM 2. Angle: 24% 8 AM-12 PM 12-4 PM 4-8 PM 4. One Motor 8 PM-12 AM i 16 Vehicle: 9% RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended to modify the signal to include protected left turns and modify the dilemma zone times. These improvements will reduce the potential of signal timing related crashes and provide protection for left turns at the intersection. In order to improve sight distance, it is recommended to move the stop bars closer to the intersection. To improve bicycle and pedestrian safety, it is recommended to refresh the crosswalk markings through the entire intersection. It is also recommended to increase the pedestrian clearance intervals in the signal timing to provide sufficient time for pedestrian crossings. Table 15 summarizes the recommended CMFs and anticipated benefits for crash prevention over a 20-year horizon. Page 50 summarizes the analysis and safety improvement recommendations for the intersection of Creek Bend Boulevard & Old Settlers Boulevard. Table 15: Countermeasure Application Results for Location I Countermeasure Total .shes Peduced over • - . . . Replace permissive with protected 0.02 Angle 58 Increase all red clearance interval 0.80 All 51 0.44 Fatal (K) 0 Increase triangle sight distance 0.63 Injury (A,B,C) 28 0.89 Non-Injury (N,99) 19 Implement systemic signing and 0.90 All 25 visibility improvements Modify signal phasing (implement a 0.87 All 33 leading pedestrian interval) CREEK BEND & OLD ' POUND POCK CREEK BEND: SPEED LIMIT: 30 MPH I DAILY TPAFFIC: 11,451 SAFETY ACTION PLAN OLD SETTLERS: SPEED LIMIT: SO MPH DAILY TRAFFIC: 23,100 ' KEY MAP CRASH HEAT MAP Vr rr ., • ' CRASH STATISTICS (2017 - 2021) , RECOMMENDED COUNTERMEASURES Total Crashes: 63 Total KAB 11 Countermeasure Crash Type CMF Crashes: Modify signal to have protected left turns All 0.02- Bike/Ped 1 Total Injuries: 19 only and modify dilemma zone times 0.80 Crashes: Improve sight distance, move stop bars All 0.44- Total Fatalities 0 closer to intersection 0.89 Top Primary Contributing Factors Refresh crosswalk markings Bike/Ped 0.90 1. Failed to Yield Right of Way 39% Increase pedestrian clearance intervals Bike/Ped 0.87 2. Disregard Traffic Signal 21% 3. Driver Inattention —12% 4. Failed to Control Speed _11% S. Changed Lane When Unsafe - 5% GEOPGETOWN ST & US 79 INTEPSECTION CONTEXT The intersection of Georgetown Street and US 79 is located in central Round Rock, east of IH-35 and west of Sunrise Road. The adjacent area is primarily residential with commercial developments at the intersection. The intersection provides pedestrian crosswalk only on the northern leg and curb ramps on all corners. Georgetown Street has a posted speed limit of 30 mph, daily traffic volume of 8,676 vehicles, and is also a 4-lane undivided facility. US 79 has a posted speed limit of 45 mph, daily traffic volume of 42,600 vehicles, and is a 5-lane undivided facility. CRASH HISTORY SUM MARY STATISTICS There were 82 total crashes at this intersection between 2017-2021. Of these total crashes, 25 resulted Light Conditions Primary Manner in an injury with 9 of them being KABs with 1 fatality. 1% of Collision ■ Daylight 3% Additionally, no crashes involved bicyclists or pedestrians. The top primary contributing factors for Dark, lighted 1. Same crashes at the intersection were the following: ■ Dark not Direction: 60% light1. Failed to Control Speed (34%) Dusk 2. Failed to Yield Right of Way (19%) �y 3. Disregard Traffic Signal (13%) LA2. Angle: 20% 4. Driver inattention (13%) Time of Day ■ 12-4 AM 2% 3. Opposite � 4-8 AM Direction: 17% 8 AM-12 PM 12-4 PM 4-8 PM �j 4. One Motor 8 PM-12 AM Vehicle: 3% RECOMMENDATIONS To mitigate left-turn crashes, it is recommended to upgrade the signal with left-turn arrows on the N-S approaches. In order to mitigate overall crashes at the intersection, it is recommended to modify the intersection geometry to close the channelized right-turns and remove the medians to provide dedicated left-turn lanes. It is also recommended to stripe left-turn lane indicators for the N-S approaches and also replace the span wire with a mast arm support for the signal heads. It is also recommended to stripe left-turn lane indicators for the N-S approaches as well as replace the span wire with a mast arm support for the signal heads. Finally, it is recommended to upgrade signal illumination at the intersection, which will improve visibility at night and reduce potential crashes. Table 16 summarizes the recommended CMFs and anticipated benefits for crash prevention over a 20-year horizon. Page 53 summarizes the analysis and safety improvement recommendations for the intersection of Georgetown Street & US 79 intersection. Table 16: Countermeasure Application Results for Location J Countermeasure Tot.Tota/ Crashes - . - . over • - . . . Install left turn flashing yellow arrow signals and supplemental 0.86 Left Turn 13 traffic signs Improve angle of channelized 0.56 All 145 right turn lane Install left-turn lane 0.75 All 82 Install intersection lighting 0.88 Nighttime 4 Convert signal from span wire 0.97 All 10 to mast arm GEORGETOWN : US 79 POUND POCK GEOPGETOWN- SPE ED LIMIT: 30 MPH I DAILY TPAFFIC: 8,676 SAFETY ACTION PLAN SH 79: SPEED LIMIT: 45 MPH DAILY TPAFFIC: 42,600 KEY MAPCRASH HEAT MAP , ».,. • '.'r TOO • • � CRASH STATISTICS (2017 - 2021) , RECOMMENDED COUNTERMEASURES Total Crashes: 82 Total KAB 9 Countermeasure Crash Type CMF Crashes: Upgrade signal with left-turn arrows on the Left Turn 0.86 Bike/Ped 0 Total Injuries: 25 north-south approaches Crashes: Modify geometry to close channelized rights Total Fatalities 1 and remove median to provide dedicated All 0.56-0.75 Top Primary Contributing Factors left turn lanes 1. Failed to Control Speed 34% Upgrade signal illumination Night 0.88 2. Failed to Yield Right of Way 19% Replace span wire for mast arm All 0.97 3. Disregard Traffic Signal -13% 3. Driver Inattention -13% 8: k , I l v.: ' ACTION PLAN With the data-driven analysis completed through the HIN development and project identification, the final step of developing the SAP is to create an action plan for next steps. With this new list of projects and dataset in hand, the City of Round Rock identified the following actions to continue progress on safety citywide: Table 17: Action Plan Objective • Timefrome Publicly commit to the goal Pass a resolution at City Council that commits the City of of reducing roadway fatalities Round Rock to significantly reducing fatal & severe Short-term, 1-2 years & injuries. crashes by 2045 Obtain funding for recommended countermeasures Short-term, 1-2 years Move forward with identified countermeasure projects. Return after construction for updated data Long-term, 8+ years Conduct more countermeasure studies along HIN roads Medium-term, 3-8 years Continue to study and update the HIN. Update the HIN regularly (every 2-3 years) as more crash Medium-term, 3-8 years, data becomes available Ongoing Develop a method for Partner with Communications to create regular safety Short-term, 1-2 years, reporting on safety progress. program reporting Ongoing MOVE FORWARD WITH IDENTIFIED PROJECTS OBTAIN FUNDING FOP PECOMMENDED COUNTEPMEASUPES SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL activities for projects and strategies identified in the Safe Street and Roads for All action plan. (SS4A) is a federal program To be eligible to apply for an implementation grant, S S established by the Bipartisan the Safety Action Plan must include: Infrastructure Law with the purpose of providing funds Multimodal, systemic roadway safety analysis to regional, local, and tribal with mapping initiatives through grants to A list of projects and strategies identified in the prevent roadway deaths and plan serious injuries. Funding is Adoption or updated before application deadline available for metropolitan planning organizations, counties, Plus at least 4 of the following: cities, town, and transit agencies or other special districts that Commitment to reduce roadway fatalities and are subdivisions of the state, federally recognized serious injuries, and a safety goal tribal governments, and multijurisdictional groups Task force responsible for Action Plan comprised of these entities. development, implementation, and monitoring Activities eligible for SS4A funding fall under the Meaningfully engaged public, stakeholders, categories of Action Plan Grants and Implementation partner agencies Grants and include: Equity-centered process, analysis, and impact Developing or updating a comprehensive Safety assessment Action Plan Assessment of and approach to update existing Conducting planning, design, and development plans, policies, guides activities in support of an Action Plan Metrics to assess programs over time Carrying out projects and strategies identified in an Action Plan Process: Implementation Grants fund projects and strategies 1. Acquire a Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) from identified in the Action Plan that address roadway SAM.gov safety problems. Implementation Grants may 2. Register with Valid Eval for an implementation also fund supplemental planning, demonstration grant activities like feasibility studies and pilot programs, as well as planning, design, and development 3. Complete and Submit Application HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES (TA) SET- (HSIP) ASIDE GRANT PROGRAM The TxDOT Highway Safety Improvement Program A part of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law that (HSIP) is designed for highway safety projects that provides funding for smaller-scale transportation eliminate or reduce the number and severity of projects such as pedestrian and bicycle facilities, traffic crashes. It is limited to improvements that recreational trails, and safe routes to school projects. address the crash types identified in the Texas This program seeks to achieve the listed objectives in Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). Funds are areas such as low-income, transit-dependent, rural, provided construction and operational improvements or other high-need areas as defined by the state. both on and off the state highway system that have tCycle: Yearly, FY 2022 - FY 2025 he purpose of improving safety. Cycle: Yearly, FY 2023 - FY 2026, Applications Required data: Preliminary application requires high- typically open in the fall and close in December. level project information to determine eligibility. Separate applications are required for each project. Required Information on projects includes: Detailed application requires detailed project information, written scope of work, location maps, • Proposal Information - District, county, project layout and context, photographs, typical additional comments, supervisory body (city, sections, comprehensive cost estimate, project county, MPO, etc.) timeline, property information, overview of potential • Roadway Information - Primary Roadway environmental concerns, and a commitment for local (street name, AADT, speed limit, etc.), project government project funding. limits, coordinates, intersecting roadways Funding Range: Large scale active transportation (street name, AADT, speed limit, etc.) infrastructure projects are eligible for • Project Information - Targeted or systemic, reimbursement for construction and engineering work codes, preferred letting date, Safety costs in communities of any size and may range Improvement Index (SII) between $5 million and $25 million for projects that seek to improve the non-motor vehicle • Cost Estimate transportation network. A total of $252.5 million in Funding Range: Total of $3.044 Billion for FY 2023 funding is associated with FY 2022 through FY 2025 How to apply: Fill out application and submit to How to Apply: Submit a preliminary application the TxDOT's Traffic Safety Division (TRF) through for each project to determine eligibility. Projects the District's HSIP point of contact, along with the deemed as eligible will be required to submit a necessary backup data (typical sections, layouts, detailed application that will expand on all aspects maps, photographs of existing site conditions, etc.). of the projects. Projects need to be set up in TxDOTCONNECT to be eligible for consideration. PETUPN AFTEP CONSTPUCTION • • • • Once a planned project is built out to completion, it is recommended to run a similar analysis to determine the effectiveness of the countermeasures. Continued study on the improved segment or intersection will determine the effectiveness of the mitigating factors and provide evidence that the city is moving towards their goal of improving safety. Additionally, successful countermeasure implementation will provide valuable data on how these factors can affect safety and can help with future projects of a similar nature both within Round Rock and other cities. It is recommended that this action be implemented in the long-term, once there are construction projects constructed and new crash data becomes available through the CBIS database. CONTINUE TO STUDY & UPDATE THE HIN CONDUCT MOPE • - - • POADS All roads and intersections on the HIN were chosen based on high crash segment rates, bike/ped crashes, or injury-causing crashes. Despite not making it in the top 10 analysis, ideally, all segments and intersections on the HIN should be further studied - especially those currently without planned improvements. It is recommended that this action be implemented in the medium-term (3-8 years) once a handful of the projects identified in this SAP are entering the design or construction phase. UPDATE THE HIN EVEPY 2-3 YEAPS AS MOPE CPASH DATA BECOMES AVAILABLE Crash data was pulled from the TxDOT CBIS database in a 5-year period from 2017 to 2021 to identify this first HIN. As new crash data is added to the database, it is recommended that the HIN be updated every 2-3 years with the 5 most recent years of data available. This would keep the HIN up to date with the most accurate information, especially with the implementation of countermeasures. PARTNER WITH COMMUNICATIONS TO REGULARLY CREATE SAFETY PROGRESS REPORTING After the resolution is passed in City Council, it will be important for the City to maintain momentum in its goal of significantly reducing fatal/severe crashes by 2045. One important implementation step is regular progress reporting to increase visibility and transparency on what actions the City is currently working on from this SAP. These reports can either be regularly updated at Council, at Transportation Board Meetings, on the City's website, or any other publicly available source. It is recommended that the City work on implementing this action in the short-term, once the Council resolution is passed - with progress reports being produced in regular intervals such as every 6 months or every year. Figure 5: CAMPO Safety Data Dashboard Performance Measure 1 (PM1)assesses traffic safety in the region. I View Fatalities per Hundred Fatalities by Year Million VMT Instead CAMPO assesses regional tratrlc safety trends each year The current rnetncs that CAMPO tracks Include the number of trafric fatalities,the number of trafflc-related serious Injuries,and © the number of fatalities or serious injuries that occur to bicyclists or pedestrians.The ultimate goal of the CAMPO safety program is progress towards zero tragic fatalities and serious Injuries In the 238 ...... 239 region.Traffic safety performance Is assessed using TxDOT's Crash Records Information System �i� 262 .1M (CRIS)data To view this dataset in greater detail,visit the CAMPO CRIS Dashboard 267 269 �� 271 461 Current and past years'performanoe targets Mdude: N 250 236 246 ___._.........__._.__---_._.. O 12�i Srmd.n o. rise of Number of Rate of Senoua Number of Ao.: Fac htu Fatalities Senous Injuries(per 100 Motoraed « (Per 100 Injuries :vAW Fatalities serious MNW lojufles 2018 269 1.29 1,104 5.31 155 2019 271 1.25 1,190 5.50 17'_ 702^:; 2021 2020 262 1.33 986 5.00 15c, Year View senousInjuries per Bicyclist/Pedestrian Fatalities and Serious Injuries Serious Injuries by Year I lundred Million WIT instead 208 A 1,244 1,332 1,286 1,1J2 1.216 1,341 17a tel 1660 '74 .00 186 O ....f� ' 987 16G•• e E me a 5 10 g° to b ■ ■ ■ ■ . L:::�a=..�. 0 2015 2015 2017 2018 2919 2020 2��+. 2015 2016 20t.' 2119 2920 _._. Year Year ra 11114111 • ra ;ROUND ROCK TEXAS Appendix D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Round Rock Transportation Master Plan Appendix PROPOSED URBAN MIXED-USE CROSS SECTIONS ROUND ROCK TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN A-1.URBAN COLLECTOR THREE-LANE WITH ANGLED PARKING B.URBAN COLLECTOR THREE-LANE WITH PARALLEL PARKING 100'ROW --_ _._- : 80'ROW I � I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I It - 10' __ 6' 10' I „ _ 12' 10' ,• SUP PLANT ANGLED PARK THRU TWLTL THRU ANGLED PARK PLANT SUP SUP PLANTS PARK THIN.. ' TWLTL THRU MARK PLANT SUP I I I 1 - 68F/F - I I •r - 48'F/F ---- - A-2 URBAN COLLECTOR THREE-LANE WITH PARALLEL PARKING&FURNITURE ZONE C.URBAN COLLECTOR THREE-LANE NO PARKING 100'ROW 64'ROW I Y I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 - I I I I I 1 I 1 1 10' 10' 6' 8' 10' 12' 10' 8' 6' 10' 10' I FURNITURE/ SUP PLANT PARK THRU TWLTL THRU PARK PLANT SUP FURNITURE/1 1 j CAFE CAFE i 10. 6 1 ' 10' 6' 10' 1 41-F/F I SW PLANT THRU PLANT SW I 1 1 32'F/F 1 Appendix E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Round Rock Transportation Master Plan Appendix $- CR 107&University Blvd Metric No Build Signalized Intersection Continuous Green T With Displaced SB Movement EB UIB NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB AM 1,001 1,358 30 426 1,001 1,358 30 426 1,001 1,358 30 426 OFF Existing Volume PM 1,205 1,657 52 203 1,205 1,657 52 203 1,205 1,657 S2 203 AM Ll Jd 10.9 r 6.2 36.4 28.7 7.3 11-8 ;F..; 14.4 OFF Delay(s) NAM 160 12.2 5.1 11 4 44.0 77.6 6.3 10.9 55.0 17.6 E A LOS l A 2.0 3.0 102.0 ERROR 144.0 41068 45.0 aSsa 48.0 #107 10.0 85.0 95%Queues(ft) S.0 5.0 ERROR ERROR 226.0 #1482 1 85.0 #326 95.3 4187 1 41.5 60.5 All 3 K 0 Crnh History A 0 (2020.2022) B 0 ROW -- Impacted Impacted Utilities -- ----- ----- Bridges ----- Feasibility Railroad — ----- ----- Cost(Planning Level) $ - $ 500,000.00 $ soo,000.00 All analyses performed using HCM 2000 for consistency #: 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity,queue may be longer. (L):longest queue is for left turn lane. volume exceeds capacity,queue is theoretically infinite arm=$100,000 turn lane=$500/1-F RAST=$2M timing=$5000 signal heads=$10,000/head partial signal mod=$200k new signal=$400k striping=$5,000/approach CFI="$5M DRAFT ICE SCORECARD 12/2/2020 CR 107&University Blvd Continuous Green T Criteria No Build SignalizedWith Displaced SB weight Notes Intersection Movement Intersection Delay(Worst Peak) 107 59.7 16.8 Intersection LOS(Worst Peak) G E B 15 Average Turn Lane Queues(FT) 0 125 0 5 Collision Index Score 3 3 3 10 1,000 for K,100 for A,10 for B,1 for all others Collision Cost($) $ $ $ Tx DOT ROW Impact Score 5 3 2 5 Scale 0-5;5 is no impacts,0 is high impacts Utility Impact Score 5 4 4 5 Other Impact Score 5 5 5 5 Railroads and bridges combined Drainage Impact Score 5 4 4 5 Cost $ 1 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 Delay Savings Benefit($) $ - $ 182,473,200 $ 186,576,000 Fredericksburg method Collision Savings Benefit($) $0 $0 $0 10%to 50%of collision costs only Benefit Cost Ratio 0.0 364.9 373.2 50 theoretical max is 10:1 Composite Score 201 701 771 100 max Time No Build No Build Signalized Intersection Continous Green T Intersection Delay(hr) 1188 Intersection Delay(hr) 1188 Intersection Delay(hr) 46 Intersection Delay(1 19 20 Year PH Intersection Delay 6177600 Annual PH Intersection 6177600 Annual PH Intersection D 239200 Annual PH Intersect- 98800 Difference NA Difference 0 Difference 5938400 Difference 6078800 Dollars saved NA Dollars saved $ - Dollars saved $ 178,152,000 Dollars saved $ 182,364,000 Alt 1 Total - Alt 2 Total 182,473,200 Alt 3 Total 186,576,000 Gas No Build No Build Signalized Intersection Continous Green T Gas(gal) 911 Gas(gal) 911 Gas(gal) 80 Gas(gal) 101 Difference NA Difference 0 Difference 831 Difference 810 Dollars saved NA Dollars saved $ - Dollars saved $ 4,321,200 Dollars saved $ 4,212,000 DRAFT ICE SCORECARD 12/2/2020 Old Settlers Blvd&AW Grimes Metric No Build Baseline(Dual Lefts and Rights) Alternative 1:Grade Seperation Alternative 2:CFI EB I WB I NB I SB EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB AM 1,1781 1,1291 1,4911 2,399 1,178 1 1,129 1,491 2,399 1,178 1 1,129 1,491 2,399 1,178 1,129 1,491 2,399 OFF Existing Volume PM 2,203T 1,083 2,0471 2,7021 2,203 1 1,083 1 2,047 2,702 1 2,203 1 1,083 2,047 1 2,702 2,203 1,083 2,047 2,702 AM 57.5 1 64.9 50.5 49.3 41.0 48.4 43.5 46.8 40.2 67.5 OFF Delay(s) PM 63.0 11 59.8 63.1 53.8 61.8 44.9 54.6 48.1 46.1 56.6 39.7 AM D D OFF LOS PM E E AM #1064 754 #1756 #2754 495.0 515.0 634.0 #1160 44.9 54.6 48.1 67.5 NA NA NA !NAj OFF 95%Queue5(ft) PM #2236 1#935 1#2564 1#3461 #1043 590.0 1 #1009 #1221 #m848 427.0 1,196.0 #1016 NA NA NA NA All 26 26 26 26 K 1 1 1 1 Crash History A 0 0 0 0 (2020-2022) B 3 3 3 3 ROW ----- Impacted Impacted Impacted Utilities ----- ----- Impacted Impacted Bridges ----- ----- Impacted ----- Feasibility Railroad ----- ---- Cost(Planning Level) $0.00 $ 750,000.00 $ 29,000,000.00 $ 10,000,000.00 All analyses performed using HCM 2000 for consistency #: 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity,queue may be longer. (L): longest queue is for left turn lane. volume exceeds capacity,queue is theoretically infinite arm=$100,000 Grade Seperation Assumptions turn lane=$500/1-F Assume AW goes over Old Settler RABT=$2M Assume 1000'of ascent and 1000'of descent on either side of the bridge structure timing=$5000 Assume 2000'of"frontage road"to still access Old Settlers per side of the road(4,000'total) signal heads=$10,000/head Assume minimal Drainage improvements(use 8%of your estimated construction Cost) partial signal mod=$200k Assume no detours or temp pavement for TCP(use 10%of your estimated construction cost) new signal=$400k Assume 300'min bridge length striping=$5,000/approach CFI="'$5M Bridge Cost Assume TX-1 girder bridge at$150/SF Pavement Cost Assume$25/SF(Include your 2000'of 6lanes for ascent and desent as well as your 4,000 feet of 4 lane 11F R's") Old Settlers Blvd at AW Grimes Criteria No Build Traditional Intersection Grade Seperation CFI weight Notes (Dual Lefts and Rights) Intersection Delay(Worst Peak) 265.9 59.4 35.4 73.8 Intersection LOS(Worst Peak) F E E F 15 Average Turn Lane Queues(FT) 754 559 306 0 5 Collision Index Score 1052 1052 1052 1052 10 1,000 for K,100 for A,10 for B,1 for a Collision Cost($) $ 4,725,000 $ 4,725,000 $ 4,725,000 $ 4,725,000 TxDOT ROW Impact Score 5 4 1 2 5 Scale 0-5;5 is no impacts,0 is high im Utility Impact Score 5 4 1 2 5 Other Impact Score 5 S 1 4 5 Railroads and bridges combined Drainage Impact Score 5 4 1 2 5 Cost $ 1 $ 750,000 $ 29,000,000 $ 10,000,000 Delay Savings Benefit($) $ $ 63,122,800 $ 79,222,000 $ 71,725,680 fredericksburg method Collision Savings Benefit($) $ - $945,000 $3,780,000 $2,362,500 10%to 50%of collision costs only Benefit Cost Ratio 0.0 85.4 2.9 7.4 50 theoretical max is 10:1 Composite Score 37 85 34 57 100 max Time No Build Traditional Intersection Grade Sep CFI Intersection Delay(hr) 528 Intersection Delay(hr) 133 Intersection Delay(hr) 35 Intersection Delay(1 82 20 Year PH Intersection Delay 2745600 Annual PH Intersection Del 691600 Annual PH Intersection 182000 Annual PH Intersect 426400 Difference NA Difference 2054000 Difference 2563600 Difference 2319200 Dollars saved NA Dollars saved $ 61,620,000 Dollars saved $ 76,908,000 Dollars saved $ 69,576,000 Alt 1 Total 63,122,800 lAlt 2 Total 79,222,000 lAlt 3 Total 71,725,680 Gas No Build Traditional Intersection Grade Sep CFI Gas(gal) 509 Gas(gal) 220 Gas(gal) 64 Gas(gal) 95.6 Difference NA Difference 289 Difference 445 Difference 413.4 Dollars saved NA Dollars saved $ 1,502,800 Dollars saved $ 2,314,000 Dollars saved $ 2,149,680 Old Setlers Rd&Mays St Metric Traditional Intersection(Dual Lefts and Grade Seperation(Mays over Old No Build Partial CFI(Mays displaced lefts) Rights on All) Settlers) EB I WB NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB AM 1,850 1,448 672 943 1,850 1,448 672 943 1,850 1,448 672 943 1,850 1,448 672 943 OFF Existing Volume PM 1,899 1,334 1,521 1,925 1,899 1,334 1,521 1,925 1,899 1,334 1,521 1,925 1,899 1,334 1,521 1,925 AM 42.5 42.9 JEEM 59.0 23 4 25.9 34.2 3S.0 19.0 36.0 34.4 7.7 32.0 17.5 42.0 50.5 OFF Delays) PM 36.8 r. 72.2 1 66.063.4 '?- 47.6 ]2.2 18.4 33.4 32.2 AM E C D OFF LOS PM D AM 816.0 562.0 1 #880 #819 449.0 357.0 292.0 261.0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA OFF 95%Queues(ft) PM 790.0 S24.0 1 #2229 #2566 #1012 4599 #1144 41258 NA NA VNANANA NA NA NA All 30 K 0 Crash History A 0 (2020-2022) B 5 ROW --- Impacted Impacted Impacted Utilities - Impacted Impacted Impacted Bridges ---- ----- ----- Feasibility Railroad - ----- ---- ----- Cost(Planning Level) $ - $ 1,200,000.00 $ 25,000,000.00 $ 5,000,000.00 All analyses performed using HCM 2000 for consistency #: 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity,queue may be longer. (L): longest queue Is for left turn lane. volume exceeds capacity,queue Is theoretically Infinite arm=$100,000 turn lane=$500/LF RABT=$2M timing=$5000 signal heads=$10,000/head partial signal mod=$200k new signal=$400k striping=$5,000/approach CFI=-$5M DRAFT ICE SCORECARD 12/2/2020 Old Settlers Rd at Mays St Criteria No Build Traditional Grade Seperation Partial CFI weight Notes Intersection Intersection Delay(Worst Peak) 324.8 81.6 31.9 32.1 Intersection LOS(Worst Peak) F F D D 15 Average Turn Lane Queues(FT) 673 340 0 0 5 Collision Index Score 75 75 75 75 10 1,000 for K,100 for A,10 for B,1 for all others Collision Cost($) $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 TxDOT ROW Impact Score 5 3 1 2 5 Scale 0-5;5 is no impacts,0 is high impacts Utility Impact Score 5 4 1 2 5 Other Impact Score 5 5 5 5 5 Railroads and bridges combined Drainage Impact Score 5 4 1 3 5 Cost $ 1 $ 1,200,000 $ 25,000,000 $ 5,000,000 Delay Savings Benefit($) $ - $ 45,520,800 $ 59,846,800 $ 61,895,600 fredericksburg method Collision Savings Benefit($) $0 $237,500 $1,900,000 $1,187,500 10%to 50%of collision costs only Benefit Cost Ratio 0.0 38.1 2.5 12.6 50 theoretical max is 10:1 Composite Score 27 70 27 69 100 max Time No Build No Build Traditional Intersection Grade Seperation Partial CFI Intersection Delay(hr) 421 Intersection Delay(hr)l 421 Intersection Delay(1 136 Intersection Delay 48.5 Intersection Delay(hi 36 20 Year PH Intersection Delay 2189200 Annual PH Intersectiod 2189200 Annual PH Intersect 707200 Annual PH Interseci 252200 Annual PH Intersecti 187200 Difference NA Difference 0 Difference 1482000 Difference 1937000 Difference 2002000 Dollars saved NA Dollars saved $ - Dollars saved $ 44,460,000 Dollars saved 1$ 58,110,000 Dollars saved $ 60,060,000 Alt 1 Total Alt 2 Total 45,520,800 Alt 3 Total 59,846,800 Alt 3 Total 61,895,600 Gas No Build No Build Traditional Intersection Grade Seperation Partial CFI Gas(gal) 404 Gas(gal) 404 Gas(gal) 200 Gas(gal) 70 Gas(gal) 51 Difference NA Difference 0 Difference 204 Difference 334 Difference 353 Dollars saved NA Dollars saved $ Dollars saved $ 1,060,800 Dollars saved $ 1,736,800 Dollars saved 1 $ 1,835,600 DRAFT ICE SCORECARD 12/2/2020 Old Settlers Blvd&Sunrise Rd Metric No Build Traditional Intersection(Dual Lefts& Partial CFI(Displaced Left Turns On Old Rights On All) Settlers) EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB EB I WB NB SB AM 1,287 1,698 462 1,502 1,287 1,698 462 1,502 1,287 1,698 462 1,502 OFF Existing Volume PM 2,216 1,583 624 1,806 2,216 1,583 624 1,806 2,216 1,583 624 1,806 AM 57.7 55.5 48.0 61.7 49.6 35.9 52.7 '4.9 35.7 OFF Delay(s) PM 55.6 47.4 58.7 53.9 67.7 60.6 51.3 F 23.a 76.4 AM D D OFF LOS PM E E AM #1087 #1440 373.0 #1612 #441 #569 195.0 4620 NA NA NA NA OFF 95%Queues(ft) PM #2072 #1332 1 450.0 #2192 #876 #647 #358 #1041 NA NA NA NA All 53 53 53 K 0 0 0 Crash History A 1 1 1 (2020-2022) B 5 5 5 ROW ----- Impacted Impacted Utilities ---- Impacted Impacted Bridges ----- --- Impacted Feasibility Railroad ----- Cost(Planning Level) $ - $ 1,200,000.00 $ 5,000,000.00 All analyses performed using HCM 2000 for consistency #: 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity,queue may be longer. (L): longest queue is for left turn lane. volume exceeds capacity,queue is theoretically infinite arm=$100,000 turn lane=$500/1-F RABT=$2M timing=$5000 signal heads=$10,000/head partial signal mod=$200k new signal=$400k striping=$5,000/approach CFI="$SM DRAFT ICE SCORECARD 12/2/2020 Old Settlers Blvd at Sunrise Rd Criteria No Build Traditional Partial CFI Weight Notes Intersection Intersection Delay(Worst Peak) 158.3 56.9 79.5 Intersection LOS(Worst Peak) F E F 15 Average Turn Lane Queues(FT) 412 195 0 5 Collision Index Score 197 197 197 30 1,000 for K,100 for A,30 for B,1 for all others Collision Cost($) S 5,675,000 $ 5,675,000 $ 5,675,000 TxDOT ROW Impact Score 5 3 1 5 Scale 0-5;5 is no impacts,0 is high impacts Utility Impact Score 5 4 1 5 Other Impact Score 5 4 3 5 Railroads and bridges combined Drainage Impact Score 5 3 1 5 Cost $ 1 $ 1,200,000 $ 5,000,000 Delay Savings Benefit($) $ - $ 26,192,400 $ 21,214,960 Fredericksburg method Collision Savings Benefit($) $0 $1,135,000 $2,837,500 10%to 50%of collision costs only Benefit Cost Ratio 0.0 22.8 4.8 50 theoretical max is 10:1 Composite Score 26 71 32 100 max Time No Build No Build Traditional Intersection Partial CFI Intersection Delay(hr) 259 Intersection Delay(hr) 259 Intersection Delay( 95 Intersection Delay(1 127.6 20 Year PH Intersection Delay 1346800 Annual PH Intersection 1346800 Annual PH Intersects 494000 Annual PH Intersect 663520 Difference NA Difference 0 Difference 852800 Difference 683280 Dollars saved NA Dollars saved $ - Dollars saved $ 25,584,000 Dollars saved $ 20,498,400 Alt 1 Total Alt 2 Total 26,192,400 Alt 3 Total 21,214,960 Gas No Build No Build Traditional Intersection Partial CFI Gas(gal) 263 Gas(gal) 263 Gas(gal) 146 Gas(gal) 125.2 Difference NA Difference 0 Difference 117 Difference 137.8 Dollars saved NA Dollars saved $ Dollars saved $ 608,400 Dollars saved $ 716,560 DRAFT ICE SCORECARD 12/2/2020 US 79&Red Bud Ln Metric No Build Traditional Intersection(Dual Lefts and Grade Seperation(Red Bud over US 79) Grade Seperatlon(US 79 over Red Bud) Rights on All) EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB AM 1,092 2,035 1,320 1,004 1,092 2,035 1,320 1,004 1,092 2,035 1,320 1,004 1,092 2,035 1,320 1,004 OFF Existing Volume PM 2,198 1,966 1,563 1,026 2,198 1,966 1,563 1,026 2,198 1,966 1,563 1,026 2,198 1,966 1,563 1,026 AM 38.4 78.7 � 37.6 44.3 71.4 70.8 32.; 33.7 35.2 55.2 OFF y Delas) PM 59.4 63.7 ' : 52.3 43.9 67.0 248 49.1 25.3 23.9 AM D E OFF LOS PMF PA 492.0 #1350 41671 #1128 418.0 #917 #737 4774 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA7NA 95%Queues(ft) #1283 #1251 #1994 #1277 968.0 856.0 41007 #779 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA All 31 0 Crash History 1 (2020-2022) 2 ROW ----- Impacted Impacted Impacted Utilities ----- Impacted Impacted Impacted Bridges ---- ----- ----- Feasibility Railroad ----- ----- Impacted Impacted Cost(Planning Level) $ - $ 1,200,000.00 $ 25,000,000.00 $ 25,000,000.00 All analyses performed using HCM 2000 for consistency #: 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity,queue may be longer. (L):longest queue is for left turn lane. volume exceeds capacity,queue is theoretically infinite arm=$100,000 turn lane=$500/LF RABT=$2M timing=$5000 signal heads=$10,000/head partial signal mod=$200k new signal=$400k striping=$5,000/approach CFI=-$SM DRAFT ICE SCORECARD I2/2/2020 US 79&Red Bud Ln Traditional Grade Seperation(Red Grade Seperation(US Criteria No Build Intersection Bud over US 79) 79 over Red Bud) Weight Notes Intersection Dela (Worst Peak) 107 59.7 132.7 250.75 Intersection LOS(Worst Peak) F E F F 15 Average Turn Lane Queues(FT) 492 747 0 0 5 Collision Index Score 148 148 148 148 10 1,000 for K,100 for A,10 for B,1 for all others Collision Cost($) $ 4,250,000 $ 4,250,000 $ 4,250,000 $ 4,250,000 TxDOT ROW Impact Score 5 3 1 1 5 Scale 0-5;5 is no impacts,0 is high impacts Utility Impact Score 5 4 1 1 5 Other Impact Score 5 5 1 3 5 Railroads and bridges combined Drainage Impact Score 5 4 1 1 5 Cost $ 1 $ 1,200,000 $ 25,000,000 $ 25,000,000 Delay Savings Benefit($) $ $ 12,298,000 $ 3,317,600 $ (7,373,600) fredericksburg method Collision Savings Benefit($) $0 $425,000 $3,400,000 $3,400,000 Z to 5T of collision costs only Benefit Cost Ratio 0.0 10.6 0.3 (0.2) 50 theoretical max is 10:1 Composite Score 261 781 71 71 1100max Time No Build No Build Traditional Intersection Grade Seperation(Red Bud Over) Grade Seperation(US 79 Over) Intersection Delay(hr) 179 Intersection Delay(hr)I 179 Intersection Delay(hr) 102 Intersection Delay(1 163 Intersection Delay(hr 231 20 Year PH Intersection Delay 930800 Annual PH Intersectionj 930800 Annual PH Intersection D 530400 Annual PH Interse 847600 Annual PH Intersectic 1201200 Difference NA Difference 0 Difference 400400 Difference 83200 Difference -270400 Dollars saved NA Dollars saved $ - Dollars saved $ 12,012,000 Dollars saved $ 2,496,000 Dollars saved $ (8,112,000) Alt 1 Total Alt 2 Total 12,298,000 Alt 3 Total 3,317,600 Alt 3 Total (7,373,600) Gas No Build No Build Traditional Intersection Grade Seperation Grade Seperation(US 79 Over) Gas(gal) 339 Gas(gal) 339 Gas(gal) 284 Gas(gal) 181 Gas(gal) 197 Difference NA Difference 0 Difference 55 Difference 158 Difference 142 Dollars saved NA Dollars saved $ - Dollars saved $ 286,000 Dollars saved $ 821,600 Dollars saved $ 738,400 DRAFT ICE SCORECARD 12/2/2020 Appendix F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ''' Round Rock Transportation Master Plan Appendix ULTIMATE ROADWAY PLAN 130 ( d\ p 0 9 2023 DRAFT 35 Gat31 ` h w oUse a �eslM9B n jeravista // o � 9�, Teravista �/ Y 9 0. `alH A pkwy Blvd. - ••• -• • '• 09 • y 13 �S `w Hol r.O`. ...y 3 �4O`fl�Fi G PvctY Nc'yO LLoop immer GP tp9 -• 1 '• N II m 11 141 m _ o waY 0o O CR 122 adtey a CR 117 Old Settlers Blvd. Ncsl LL ,....y'r- Blvd. Sam U Old Settles m e`iss v Rry c o E c -• I '• v Tiger Trail (j Y m m d `n 79 Stern i finch B/ t ad. ea N o I p vd � ••• '• S y` G eev 4 iL Sqa O 1D U a ' Brightwater Blvd. S y° m n O n O �O S� Upaa 1Dio Forest mMai^ Q Creek Dr. _ B\vd. • •. prteri al C Gattis School Rd. Priem Ln. tea �^ ^tN •g\vd• � 620 0 �aFg 'tAol Go 130 Rowe Ln. ja' 45 �° r 1f 11 \ • ULTIMATE ROADWAY PLAN f 130 $ 2023 DRAFT 4 Jse F �esir^9^o not letav\st 'o �� 6 Teravista y Qp \H m. _ pkwY Ivd d'1 _m ••• -• I •• 09 Pct d ^lyerscl o o '\ ^B\vd m 7\/\ 0 wNoP Oo9. y4O�'9\\4 a Pvery Ness Llmmer Loop GP 1p9 0 -• 1 '• Nc •: ��m��\I��,II 3 4 1431 a9 a\G^ CR 122 \��- OJdBad\e' CR 117 Old Settlers Blvd. NestD° oSam U Oldtles Blvd. 01 a Bass v c o Ro F c -• • •� v Y . Tiger Trall C7 • a c a gowt^a^ d � 4 Maoa 1 s.0 m CO 3 in 79 StarR Ha1N I m ch Blvd by GteeR ` ?41 to - gtJS Brightwater Blvd. O n Forest r Creek Dr. - Om tY Pa^c^Btvd C1� Arterial G Gattis School Rd. Priem Ln... • - co` c ` Nt9hgt�d. O620o°c Fro^dta ett NaY G°J^pry 130 O (1 4ag\� O y Rowe Ln. 45 � `o• � \�a• 45 _ t ,.. _ r TABLE 3.2 - SUMMAPY OF • THE 2017POADWAY PLAN Al CR 117 CR 112 CR 122 2 Lane Existing Removal Removed per Staff Comments, to remain a 2 lane collector from Bluffstone to Red Bud A2 Wyoming Springs Dr FM 1431 - FM 3406 4 Lane Proposed Removal Removed 4 Lane - Proposed per staff comments A3 Brushy Creek Rd Parmer Ln Howard Ln 2 Lane Existing Reclassify 2 Lane - Existing to 4 Lane - Enhanced A4 N Mays St Northwest Dr. - Palm 4 Lane Enhanced Reclassify Changed from 2 Lane - Existing to 4 Lane - Enhanced Valley Blvd A5 CR 110 Westinghouse to US 79 6 Lane - Proposed Reclassify 4 Lane Enhanced to 6 Lane - Proposed A6 CR 114/Chandler Rd SH 130 CR 100 6 Lane - Proposed Reclassify 4 Lane Enhanced to 6 Lane Proposed A7 CR 110 CR 164 - US 79 6 Lane Proposed Reclassify 4 Lane Enhanced to 6 Lane Proposed A8 N Kenney Fort Blvd CR 117 - CR 113 6 Lane - Proposed Reclassify 4 Lane Proposed to 6 Lane Proposed A9 McNeil Rd IH 35 CR 172 6 Lane Enhanced Reclassify 6 Lane Enhanced to 4 Lane - Existing A10 TBD 84 PUD 4 Lane Proposed Addition New roadway roughly following MoKan alignment All Vizcaya Pkwy 84 PUD 2 Lane - Proposed Addition 84 PUD Addition-Extended North per staff comments Al2 Wallin Bradley Dr 84 PUD 4 Lane Proposed Addition 84 PUD Addition A13 Campus Village Drive 84 PUD 2 Lane - Proposed Addition 84 PUD Addition A14 Wallin Bradley Dr 84 PUD 3 Lane Proposed Addition 84 PUD Addition-Adjusted based on comments A15 Joe Dimaggio Kenney Fort - E Palm 3 Lane Proposed Addition 3 Lane Proposed Added per staff comments Valley Blvd Alb Double Creek Drive Palm Valley - Forest 4 Lane - Proposed Addition Added Per Staff Comments: Realigned to match up to the Luthern Creek Church driveway to the North A17 Eagles Nest St IH35 - Wyoming 4 Lane Proposed Addition Added 4 Lane - Proposed per staff comments Springs A18 Wyomingiveprings FM 1431 - Eagles Nest 4 Lane Proposed Addition Added 4 Lane Proposed per staff comments A19 Creek Bend Blvd FM 1431 - Eagles Nest 4 Lane Proposed Addition Added 4 Lane Proposed per staff comments A20 Avery Nelson Blvd CR 112 to CR 110 6 Lane Proposed Realignment Realign per staff comments A21 Avery Nelson Blvd CR 110 to CR 118 4 Lane - Proposed Realignment Alignment changed based on development A22 Arterial C Deepwood Dr - 4 Lane Proposed Realignment Moved North to Avoid Public Facilities Wyoming Springs Dr A23 E Old Settlers Blvd Arterial A - CR 122 4 Lane Existing Reclassify 4 Lane - Existing to 6 Lane - Proposed A24 CR 122 CR 122 - CR 110 3 Lane Enhanced Realignment Aligned 90 degree turn for low water crossing A25 Innovation Blvd Avery Nelson to CR 100 2 Lane Proposed Addition Added per regional coordination A26 CR 107 Existing to University 4 Lane Proposed Realignment Disconnect current intersection at University and realign as 4 lane divided further west A27 CR 118 University to Ed 4 Lane - Enhanced Reclassify Widened per staff comments Schmidt A28 Ed Schmidt Blvd Chandler Rd to Hutto 4 lane - Enhanced Realignment Adjusted CR 100 to current Ed Schmidt Alignment built by Williamson County A29 CR 108 CR 100 to Hutto 2 Lane - Proposed Addition Alignment with Hutto and Georgetown plans for additional road east of SH 130 where frontage roads are lacking