* * * * NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING * * * *
CARROLLTON CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING and WORKSESSION
JULY 19, 2005
CITY HALL, 2ND FLOOR 1945 E. JACKSON ROAD DINNER, PRE-M EETING & WORKSESSION – 5:45 P.M. CARROLLTON, TEXAS REGULAR M EETING – 7:00 P.M.
AGENDA
* * * * PRE-MEETING / EXECUTIVE SESSION * * * *
1. Mayor and Council reports and information sharing.
2. Receive supplemental staff information and responses to questions.
3. Council will convene in Executive Session pursuant to Texas Government Code:
· Section 551.071 for private consultation with the City Attorney to seek legal advice with respect to pending and contemplated litigation and including all matters on this agenda to which the City Attorney has a duty under the Texas Rules of Discipline and Professional conduct regarding confidential communication with the City Council, and. · Section 551.072 to discuss certain matters regarding real property · Section 551.074 to discuss personnel matters. · Section 551.087 to discuss Economic Development
4. Council will reconvene in open session to consider action, if any, on matters discussed in the Executive Session.
* * * * WORKSESSION * * * *
5. Discuss Pedestrian & Bicycle System Master Plan.
6. Discuss City Council Committee Appointments.
7. Discuss Fiscal Year 2006 Community Service Requests.
8. Discuss Historic Preservation Advisory Committee (HPAC) Activities and Projects related to Downtown Carrollton and Transit-Oriented Development.
9. Update on Salary Compensation.
REGULAR M EETING & WORKSESSION AGENDA – JULY 19, 2005 PAGE 2
INVOCATION by Bunny Summerlin of Metrocrest Social Services.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
PUBLIC FORUM
10. Hearing of any citizen/visitor on items not listed on the regular meeting agenda. Citizens/visitors should complete an appearance card located on the table at the entrance to the City Council Chambers. (Pursuant to State Open Meetings Law, the City Council is restricted in discussing or taking action on items not posted on the agenda. Action on the issue can only be taken at a future meeting.)
CONSENT AGENDA (*All items marked with a single asterisk are part of a Consent Agenda and require no deliberation by the Council. Each Council member has the prerogative of removing an item from this agenda so that it may be considered separately. Contracts and agreements are available in the City Secretary’s Office.)
BIDS AND PURCHASES
*11. Consider approval for purchase of Light Bars from Emergency Vehicle Equipment in an amount not to exceed $37,000.00.
*12. Consider approval bid #05-042 for Water and Sewer Supply to Various Venders as Recommended by Staff in an amount not to exceed $350,000.00.
CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS
*13. Consider Authorizing the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement with BW2 Engineers, Inc. for the Design and Plan Preparation of a 10’ Wide Trail Generally Along Furneaux Creek from Frankford Road to Josey Lane (near Woodlake) in the amount not to exceed $36,500.00.
*14. Consider Authorizing the City Manager to execute Change Order No. 1 for Street Replacements 04-2P with Santos Construction for the amount of $57,925.00, revising the contract amount to $1,268,621.50.
*15. Consider Authorizing the City Manager to execute the amendment to the Management Services Agreement with Evergreen Alliance Golf Limited (EAGL) for Golf Carts.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - CONSENT AGENDA (Items listed under the “Public Hearing Consent Agenda” have received a unanimous recommendation for approval by the Planning & Zoning Commission, and the city has received no written opposition to the cases at the date of the posting of the agenda. However, any person is welcome to speak on any of these agenda items by completing a “Request to Speak” card prior to the meeting. Otherwise, the items will be considered without deliberation. Each Council member has the prerogative of removing an item from this agenda so that it may be considered separately.)
*16. Hold a public hearing and consider an ordinance approving a Special Use Permit for plastic manufacturing for Abraham Dry Cleaning Supply. The 16,459 square foot lease space is located at 1445 W. Belt Line Road, on the southeast corner of Belt Line Road and Hutton Drive and is zoned (LI) Light Industrial District. Case No. 07-05SUP3 Abraham Dry Cleaning Supply/Chang Yoo. REGULAR M EETING & WORKSESSION AGENDA – JULY 19, 2005 PAGE 3 PUBLIC HEARINGS
17. Hold a public hearing and consider an ordinance approving a Special Use Permit for plastic manufacturing for North American Plastics. The 41,160 square foot lease space is located at 1440 LeMay Drive, at the northwest corner of Dickerson Parkway and LeMay Drive and is zoned PD-42 for the (LI) Light Industrial District. Case No. 07- 05SUP4 North American Plastics/Randy Wood.
** In order to expedite the flow of business and to provide all citizens the opportunity to speak, the Mayor may impose a five -minute limitation on any person addressing the Council.
CERTIFICATE - I certify that the above agenda giving notice of meeting was posted on the bulletin board at the City Hall of Carrollton, Texas on the 15th day of July 2005 at ______p.m.
______Ashley D. Mitchell, City Secretary
This building is wheelchair accessible. For accommodations or sign interpretive services, please contact City Secretary’s Office at least 72 hours in advance at 972-466-3021. Opportunities and services are offered by the City of Carrollton without regard to race, color, age, national origin, religion, sex or disability.
CC Meeting: July 19, 2005
Date: July 13, 2005
To: Leonard Martin, City Manager
From: Scott Whitaker, Parks & Recreation Director
Subject: Pedestrian & Bicycle System Master Plan
Background: In May 2004 Bowman-Melton, Associates, Inc. was hired by the city to develop a comprehensive trail plan. This plan will address the creation of a non-motorized transportation and recreation system throughout the city with links to neighboring cities. The document and map will help guide decisions about future trails, preservation and development of city’s resources with respect to connections from residential and mixed-use areas to future DART rail stations, TOD, bus routes, employment, commercial and recreation centers, schools, parks, and open space. Included in the plan are design guidelines, standards, and typical cross-sections as well as at-grade crossings and probable costs.
Engineering and Urban Development and the Parks & Recreation Departments have been working closely with the consultants to provide a draft for your review. The consultants will present a PowerPoint presentation during the worksession. If acceptable to the City Council, the packet would be reviewed by the Park & Recreation Advisory Board later in July, then by the Planning & Zoning Commission in August. Finally it would return to City Council in early September for your approval.
Recommendation: Staff recommends City Council review the attached draft of the Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan and provide feedback.
Attachment: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan
PARKS & RECREATION • 4220 N. Josey Lane • P.O. Box 110535 • Carrollton, Texas 75011-0535 972.466.3080 • Fax: 972.466.4722 • www.cityofcarrollton.com
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan
Prepared by
June 23, 2005 PRELIMINARY FINAL PLAN Approved by City Council Resolution No. ____ (Date)
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Acknowledgements
City Council Mayor – Becky Miller Place 4 – Terry Simons Place 1 – Tim Hayden Place 5 – Larry Williams Place 2 – John Mahalik Place 6 – Ron Branson Place 3 – Pat Malone Place 7 – Herb Weidinger
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Kristen Gray Bill Nitcholas Linda Hudson Jennifer Smith Bill Kirkland Al Somerhalder Phillip Kitzman David Trigleth John Mahalik
Planning and Zoning Commission Roy Atwood Harry Hunt Susan Ernst Mark Nesbit Kevin Falconer Kristin Taylor Brian Farlow Terrance Wright
City of Carrollton Staff Scott Whitaker, Director, Parks and Recreation Cesar Molina, Director, Engineering John Webb, Director, Urban Development Christopher Barton, Chief Planner, Urban Development Andrew Combs, Coordinator, Engineering, Capital Improvements Nancy Cline, Civil Engineering Division Manager Bob Schantz, City Arborist
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 i
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 ii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements...... i Table of Contents...... iii Executive Summary ...... 1 1. Introduction ...... 3 2. Plan Goal and Objectives...... 5 3. Concept Plan Development ...... 7 4. Concept Plan Refinement ...... 17 5. Recommendations ...... 25 6. Master Plan Cost Estimates...... 53 7. Facilities Design Guidelines ...... 57 8. Funding Opportunities and Strategies...... 73 9. Conclusion ...... 79 APPENDICES A. Data Collection B. On-Street Bicycle Level of Service (BLOS) Evaluation Method C. Community Meeting Citizen Comments D. Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan: Prioritization Criteria E. Summary of Master Plan Level Costs by Priority for Recommended Facilities F. Recommended Trail Segment Evaluations G. Recommended On-Street Bicycle Segment Evaluations H. Sample Agreements and Policies for Trail Development within Utility Properties
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 iii
Table of Figures Figure 3-1 Bicycle Level of Service (BLOS) Characteristics...... 12 Figure 4-1 Trail Segment Prioritization Criteria...... 21 Figure 4-2 On-Street Bike Route Segment Prioritization Criteria...... 22 Figure 5-1 Priority 1 Multi-Use Trails ...... 27 Figure 5-2 Priority 1 Multiuse Trails and On-Street Bikeways ...... 28 Figure 5-3 Priority 1-2 Multi-Use Trails ...... 31 Figure 5-4 Priority 1-2 Multi-Use Trails and On-Street Bikeways ...... 33 Figure 5-5 Recommended Trail System ...... 36 Figure 5-6 Recommended Trail and On-Street Bikeway System ...... 37 Figure 5-7 Recommended Trail System with Sidewalk System ...... 40 Figure 5-8 Downtown Carrollton DART LRT Station Area...... 41 Figure 5-9 Illustrative Concept Plan for Downtown Station Area ...... 42 Figure 5-10 Trinity Mills DART LRT Station Area ...... 43 Figure 5-11 Trinity Mills DART LRT Station Area Concept...... 44 Figure 5-12 Hutton Branch Greenway ...... 45 Figure 5-13 Furneaux Creek Greenway Corridor ...... 47 Figure 5-14 Furneaux Creek trail prototype underpass McCoy Road ...... 47 Figure 5-15 Peters Colony Crossing Concept ...... 49 Figure 5-16 Trinity River Greenway Corridor ...... 50 Figure 6-1 Master Plan Level Costs by Priority for Recommended Facilities ...... 54 Figure 6-2 On-Street Improvement Costs...... 56 Figure 7-1 Multi-use Bicycle Facility Width ...... 59 Figure 7-2 Sidewalk Facility Width...... 62 Figure 7-3 Typical Facility Widths ...... 63 Figure 7-4 Chevron Pavement Marking ...... 63 Figure 7-5 Off-set median crossing refuge ...... 65 Figure 7-6 Peters Colony (2 lane collector) At-Grade Crossing – Sectional Elevation ...... 65 Figure 7-7 At-Grade Trail/Roadway Crossing...... 66 Figure 7-8 Conceptual McCoy Road Below Grade Crossing...... 66 Figure 7-9 Conceptual McCoy Road Below-Grade Crossing – Sectional Elevation...... 67
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 iv
Executive Summary
With a goal of establishing a common vision for pedestrian and bicyclist transportation and recreation, Carrollton has seized the opportunity to enhance the quality of life for its residents, businesses and visitors. By utilizing its abundant greenway resources and establishing transit- oriented development opportunities, the city is setting the stage for the arrival of DART light rail service in 2010.
The overall focus of this plan is to develop a prioritized network of multi-use trails, on-street bikeways and sidewalks, thereby improving mobility for both non-motorized transportation and recreation purposes. Plan development prioritization emphasizes early access to the DART light rail stations, as well as to a future Denton County Transit Authority commuter rail station. Already, the city has established transit-oriented zoning around its planned Downtown and Trinity Mills stations.
This plan guides the city in providing Carrollton residents, employees and visitors with the facilities needed to encourage and support active lifestyles. Enhancing quality-of-life by providing access to greenway resources was another important factor in prioritizing this plan. Finally, assessing potential development cost was an important factor in selecting recommended corridors.
As the non-motorized network is developed, pedestrians and bicyclists will increasingly have opportunities to access recreational, civic, cultural, educational, commercial and employment destinations. Future developments will also benefit by integrating pedestrian and bicyclist facilities into their plans and tying into the citywide system.
High-use trails are recommended connecting Carrollton neighborhoods to the future DART rail at the Downtown and Trinity Mills stations via Hutton Branch, Furneaux Creek, the east-west TXU easement south of Jackson Road and the DART/Union Pacific corridor. In later phases, the trails will be extended along greenbelts, utility easements and edges of rail corridors. Carrollton’s trail along the Elm Fork will enable interjurisdictional Trinity Trail connections to Lewisville, Coppell and Irving.
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 1
For the trail system to be fully functional, sidewalks and on-street bikeways are needed to take people to their final destinations.
Carrollton currently has approximately 3 miles of hard surface trails in parks. Over the next 25 years, this plan recommends adding almost 60 miles of trails throughout the city. There are currently no officially designated on-street bikeways in the city. This plan identifies 51 miles of potential on-street bike routes, of which over 40 miles are already suitable for bicycling. Together the trail and on-street bikeway network results in more than 113 miles of interconnected routes at full buildout. This plan also identifies a network of existing and recommended sidewalks to support pedestrian travel and access to DART’s future rail feeder bus routes.
The entire trail and bikeway system is envisioned to take 25 years to implement. Using information contained in the North Central Texas Council of Governments’ Mobility 2025: The Metropolitan Transportation Plan, 2004 Update, it is estimated to cost approximately $70.8 million to fully implement. Of this, $691,000 is required to develop the on-street bikeway system.
There are a variety of federal, state, and local funding mechanisms that can be used to implement this plan, including federal air quality improvement, transportation enhancement, and safe routes to school funds, state park development funds, local bond funds, annual budget allocations, and construction with private development. For federal and state funds, a local match of 20 – 50 percent is generally required.
Through implementation of this plan, Carrollton residents can become active participants in cleaning the air in North Texas. Residents will thrive with healthier, more physically active lifestyles; and visitors and employees who come here will more easily travel between public transportation and their workplaces, shopping and other common destinations.
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 2
1. Introduction
The city of Carrollton is in the midst of developing plans for the arrival of DART light rail in 2010. This advance planning should prepare the city to take full advantage of the tremendous opportunity rail station access will provide for both commercial and residential redevelopment as well as expanded opportunities for businesses and residents who currently live in Carrollton.
A major focus of this planning effort, begun in May 2004, has been to envision how residents and employees can incorporate this new opportunity to use light rail as part of their travel mode choice. Not only is the City preparing for access to the new rail stations by planning for enhanced non-motorized access, both by walking and by bicycling, but it is also developing new mixed-use zoning around its future Downtown Carrollton rail station and along Belt Line Road in the Josey Lane area.
In addition to the potential new pedestrian and bicyclist facilities can provide for transit access, the City is on course to create new recreational opportunities within its abundant greenbelts – especially along Hutton Branch, Furneaux Creek, Dudley Branch, Indian Creek, and the Trinity River’s Elm Fork corridor.
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 3
This trail system has been planned with the intent of providing an integrated, interconnected system utilizing not only greenbelts, but also utility corridors, and an on-street sidewalk and bikeway system. The sidewalk system developed in this plan is focused on access to transit – both to future rail stations and to future bus routes needed to carry people to these stations. In addition, existing and proposed sidewalks near schools and parks have been evaluated and mapped.
For the on-street bikeways, analysis was focused on identifying a system of bicycle-friendly streets that connect neighborhood to neighborhood, providing access to trails, parks, schools, transit, civic and commercial destinations.
This integrated and interconnected on-street and off-street system is envisioned to work together to support non-motorized travel throughout the city. The connectivity of the planned system is constrained in some cases by freeways, tollways, and arterials, as well as rail lines which travel through the city. These impacts can be minimized through future infrastructure improvements, which for the most part can only take place in conjunction with reconstruction of these roadways and rail lines.
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 4
2. Plan Goal and Objectives
The goal of this master plan is to establish a common vision for pedestrian and bicyclist transportation and recreation with the support of area stakeholders, including the City of Carrollton leadership – its City Council, Planning and Zoning Commission, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, and interdepartmental staff team – as well as its residents and businesses, Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART), and other transportation and planning agencies. The objective is to create a fundable plan that utilizes the potential offered by the city’s greenbelts, rail corridors, utility corridors, and street system; and supports mixed-use transit- oriented redevelopment.
Additional objectives include enhancing the experience for visitors and employees in Carrollton, who will arrive at the Downtown and Trinity Mills DART light rail stations or travel along trails, sidewalks and bike-friendly streets to employment, shopping, recreational or educational
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 5 destinations either from within Carrollton or from adjacent cities. Also included in this plan is the potential for equestrian trails extending from planned trails in Irving along the Trinity River corridor, as well as an additional canoe launch.
This plan is intended to support active lifestyles for Carrollton families, whether they are heading to the park, school, nearby shopping, the bus, rail station, or other civic destinations.
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 6
3. Concept Plan Development
Current Conditions
The city of Carrollton is situated about 14 miles north of downtown Dallas. The city extends into three counties – Collin, Dallas, and Denton. Carrollton, with a land area of 37 square miles, had an estimated population of 116,500 residents in January 2004, according to the city’s website. More than 128,000 residents are forecast for 2030.
Although Carrollton’s population grew 33.4 percent between 1990 and 2000 (from 82,169 to 109,576) according to the North Central Texas Council of Governments’ (NCTCOG) Census 2000, growth is expected to slow in the next decade due to ‘build out’ of the city. NCTCOG projects the city’s population to increase at 9 percent between 2000 and 2010, 1.4 percent between 2010 and 2020 and 2.7 percent between 2020 and 2030.
According to NCTCOG, Carrollton became increasingly diverse between 1990 and 2000, with 154.2 percent population growth of Hispanics of all races (from 8,420 to 21,400); and 114.7 percent growth of the Asian and Pacific Islander population (from 5,598 to 12,019). During this same period the Black population grew 71 percent (from 4,014 to 6,862), while the White population grew 15.3 percent (from 68.300 to 78,758). The Census 2000 identifies 12,338 persons in Carrollton with a disability (civilian non-institutionalized persons five years and older), 11.2 percent of the total population.
The Census 2000 shows a school enrollment for the population 3 years and over to be 29,869. Of these, 46.6 percent are in elementary school (grades 1-8) and 20.7 percent are in high school (grades 9-12). In reviewing population by age, currently 64.2 percent of the population is between the ages of 20 and 64; 30.3 percent is under 20; and 5.3 percent is 65 years or older. Thirty-seven percent have a Bachelor’s degree or higher.
The population is served by three school districts: Carrollton/Farmer’s Branch ISD, Dallas ISD and Lewisville ISD.
The Carrollton workforce is spread over a wide array of industries, with 92 percent in the private sector and 8 percent government workers. Occupational classifications are predominately either
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 7 management and professional (42.3 percent) or sales and office (31.5 percent). Average household income in 1999 was $74,430.
Carrollton’s civilian labor force currently has about 75,000 employees at more than 5,000 businesses, according to the city’s website. NCTCOG projects an almost 20 percent growth in the number of jobs in Carrollton by 2030, or almost 15,000 new jobs.
Nearly 72 percent of Carrollton’s workforce is employed in services, wholesale and retail trade, and manufacturing. Employers with more than 1,000 workers include the Carrollton/ Farmers Branch Independent School District, Halliburton Energy Services, RIA Computer Software, and ST Microelectronics Semiconductors. In addition there are seven employers with 500 to 1,000 employees, and twenty-one with 150 to 500 employees.
There are five major business parks listed on the city’s website: Valwood Industrial Park, Frankford Trade Center, Austin Ranch, International Business Park and Trinity Mills Industrial Park. Carrollton has about 5,000 acres of available land for future development, or about 22 percent of total land area, of which 40 percent is designated in the city’s land use plan for office, commercial and industrial use.
The Census 2000 shows that 772 people walked to work which accounts for only 1.3 percent of the working population; 588 people (one percent) commuted by other means than car and vanpool. The regional goal for bicycling and walking is 8 percent; the national goal is 15 percent of total trips.
Currently Carrollton has over 1,230 acres of developed parkland, which ranks among the highest per capita parkland in the Dallas/ Fort Worth metropolitan area, according to the city’s website. The City of Carrollton adopted A Lifetime of Leisure Carrollton: Parks Master Plan in March 2004 to meet diverse resident needs, develop and maintain facilities and encourage community interest.
Interstate Highway 35E (Stemmons Freeway) runs north-south bisecting Carrollton, while the President George Bush Turnpike runs east-west, then turns southwesterly at its junction with Stemmons Freeway. Four major railroads run through the city – two Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) owned former freight rail corridors: the Union Pacific (UP) and Cotton Belt (CB) Railroads; the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad; and the Kansas City Southern
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 8
(KCS) Railroad. Three of these (the two DART lines and the BNSF) intersect just north of Belt Line Road and the city’s historic downtown. All four rail lines include commuter rail or light rail in NCTCOG’s regional long range transportation plan, the Mobility 2025 – 2004 Update. The North Crosstown Study of potential future light or commuter rail includes the KCS and BNSF Railroads.
Project Initiation
This planning project was begun on May 28, 2004 with a kick-off meeting and driving tour of city park facilities. At this meeting, city staff emphasized the importance of non- motorized rail station access, station area redevelopment plans, and potential projects to be coordinated in the city’s Five Year Work Plan. The staff team – including representatives from the parks and recreation, urban development and engineering departments – coordinated with the project planning team throughout this planning process.
During the driving tour, the team visited both developed and undeveloped parks, greenbelts, including the current construction project along Furneaux Creek between Cemetery Hill Road and Crooked Creek Lane.
Early in the planning process, walking tours with city staff were also conducted in the vicinity of the future DART light rail stations.
Data Collection
An abundance of information was provided by the city and was used in the development of this plan. Information provided digitally by the City or its consultants included census data, relevant city ordinance chapters related to transportation infrastructure design standards and park land dedication requirement, plans, listings and maps related to land use, thoroughfares and
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 9 sidewalks, traffic counts, bond program projects, DART station area plans, major corridor redevelopment plans and design standards, parks master plan, and current subdivision plans.
In addition, trail plans were collected for the cities of Addison, Dallas, Irving, Coppell, Lewisville, Farmers Branch, Plano, and The Colony, as well as from Dallas County. No trail plan was available from Denton County. Land use plans were collected for the cities of Irving, Plano and The Colony, as well as for Denton County. A zoning map for Addison was obtained. Land use plans for other surrounding cities or Dallas County were not available.
See Appendix A for a detailed list of data collection.
Assessment of Current Conditions
Current conditions were assessed utilizing data collected, and site reviews were undertaken to familiarize the planning team with parks, greenbelts, streets, sidewalks, barriers to non- motorized travel and current development patterns. In addition, a meeting was held with DART staff to discuss the potential for inclusion of a trail along the DART Northwest Corridor line, which runs through Carrollton from Farmers Branch to Lewisville. Early in the process, information was organized on the citywide base map. And an analysis of conditions for bicyclists, utilizing a subset of city streets, was undertaken.
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 10
Mapping
Digital information provided by the City in AutoCAD was used to develop the non-motorized plan base map in ESRI ArcView. Information depicting existing, programmed, or planned trails both within and adjacent to the city of Carrollton was mapped. At this time, the mapping was set to distinguish between previously adopted trails in the March 2004 Carrollton Parks Master Plan, and the trails that would later be proposed as part of this plan. These can be distinguished as planned (dashed green lines) or proposed in this plan (dotted green lines). Other information, such as schools, parks, and civic destinations, was added to the base map where needed. DART rail stations and future station feeder bus routes were also added at this time.
During this planning phase, current and planned origins/destinations the plan may serve were identified, including parks, schools, commercial areas, civic destinations, future DART rail stations and bus routes, and adjacent cities’ trails. Programmed sidewalks in N.O.T.I.C.E. neighborhoods – neighborhoods where financial resources for all necessary street, alley, sidewalk, and water and sewer line projects are targeted at one time – were mapped for Rollingwood Estates and Holiday Park subdivisions.
Bicycle Level of Service (BLOS) Analysis for Potential On-Street Bikeways
Following the assembly of information (traffic counts, thoroughfare plan roadway widths, and speed limits) necessary to conduct the Bicycle Level of Service (BLOS) analysis for primarily collector streets, the BLOS was conducted and results were mapped for future consideration.
The BLOS analysis assists in identifying factors that cause bicyclists’ stress. Assessment of primary factors (traffic volume, lane width and traffic speed) is used to determine the bicycle level of service for a street or road segment; BLOS A being least stressful followed by B, C, D and F. Streets scoring a BLOS B, are considered to be ‘bicycle friendly’ or suitable for novice adult cyclists or child cyclists who have learned basic bicycle skills and ‘rules of the road.’ BLOS C is suitable for trained or experienced adult cyclists who know
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 11 how to operate their vehicles in the normal flow of traffic. Streets with a BLOS D or F are considered to be highly stressful for bicyclists, and fail to accommodate them in an appropriate manner. Secondary BLOS factors (street parking turn-over rates, truck traffic levels, commercial driveway spacing) were not evaluated for this master plan, but should be evaluated prior to signing any bike route. See Appendix B for additional information on BLOS evaluation methodology.
Figure 3-1 Bicycle Level of Service (BLOS) Characteristics
BLOS Map Legend Traffic Characteristics
Free traffic flow with bicyclists virtually unaffected by the presence of other A Bike Friendly types of vehicles in traffic. Stable flow with a high degree of freedom for bicycle operation but with B Bike Friendly some influence from other vehicles. May have some on-street parking. Suitable for Restricted flow which remains stable but with significant interaction between C experienced bicyclists and motorists. May have sporadic on-street parking and a bicyclists moderate level of mid-block commercial driveways.
High speed, high density flow in which freedom to maneuver is severely D Inaccessible restricted and congestion is noticeable, although flow is stable. Interaction to bicyclists at intersections is unfavorable. Trucks, street parking and commercial driveways may be common.
High speed flow with traffic volume at capacity or exceeding capacity with Inaccessible F multiple conflicts at intersections. There may be frequent trucks, on-street to bicyclists parking and commercial driveways. Adapted from NCTCOG’s 1995 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Planning and Design Guidelines.
The preliminary BLOS evaluation was conducted on selected road segments within the city of Carrollton. For lane width, this analysis was based on the City’s current Transportation Plan map and General Design Standards for streets by classification. Primary focus in the analysis was on collector streets. Later, additional streets including selected residential and arterial streets were analyzed in the process of developing an interconnected system, and these streets were also mapped.
For traffic speed factor in the BLOS analysis, “speed” from the City of Carrollton Master Thoroughfare Plan Listing was utilized. Existing traffic counts were used, except in instances where none were available. In these cases, traffic counts were estimated. The BLOS analysis was supplemented with several site reviews of problem areas, primarily where collector and residential streets require jogs along arterials for connectivity.
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 12
A summary of BLOS findings, together with the analysis map was reviewed with city staff, and suggestions were provided for additional treatments or project placeholders at key locations, including DART stations. Potential solutions to improve these roadway corridors have been identified either as to be incorporated into the existing Capital Improvement Program; as spot improvements (such as lowering the speed limit), restriping the street, adding pavement through an arterial jog; or as requiring improvement together with future overall roadway construction of a street segment.
Potential on-street bike route segment prioritization including cost factors, improved mobility factors, and quality of life / environmental factors were undertaken during plan refinement. See Appendix G. Recommended On-Street Bicycle Segment Evaluations for details.
DART Light Rail Station Area Plans and Carrollton Renaissance Initiatives
In June 2002 the Carrollton City Council adopted a set of plans for the Downtown Carrollton, Trinity Mills and Frankford Road DART station areas, as well as plans for the redevelopment of the Belt Line Road Corridor, Belt Line Road at Josey Lane Retail Area, and Downtown Carrollton to address the need for redevelopment in a nearly built-out city, to accommodate future growth, and to meet the demand for new housing, as well as support the region’s air quality improvement initiatives.
The Downtown Carrollton station area, including historic Downtown, is being planned to support mixed-use transit-oriented development. The Trinity Mills Station is envisioned to support expanded commercial development. The status of the North Carrollton Station at Frankford Road is on hold until the recently established Denton County Transit Authority plans are further developed. Belt Line Road Corridor planning includes mixed-use development from west of Denton Drive to Meyers Street and along Belt Line Road between Perry Avenue and Josey Lane.
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 13
Carrollton Comprehensive Subdivision Ordinance
Other information provided by the City, including Article X, Design Standards and Article XI, Construction and Improvements, were reviewed in order to glean pertinent information in plan development – including sidewalk requirements and parkland dedication fees.
The city’s Design Standards, Article, X Section G. Sidewalks requires sidewalks along any street upon which a lot abuts except: • On local streets in a Freeway District (FWY), Light Industrial District (LI), Heavy Industrial District (HI), or Industrial Park District (IP) • along IH-35E frontage roads (Ord. No. 2573, 11/07/00) • on property that was a legal lot of record prior to April 2, 1962 • in existing subdivisions accepted without sidewalks.
For residential subdivisions, sidewalks are to be constructed by the developer along all collector and arterial thoroughfares as well as subdivision perimeter streets. The builder is responsible for sidewalk construction along the frontage of individual lots, including along a collector or arterial. Builders must also provide sidewalks along the side and rear lot where it abuts a local street.
For non-residential subdivisions, sidewalks are to be constructed along all streets, except as noted above. Temporary sidewalk waivers may be granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission under specific circumstances, which may be revoked at any time.
Specifically called out is the requirement for the provision of a sidewalk deemed necessary by the Planning and Zoning Commission where necessary to provide circulation or access to schools, public parks and playgrounds, shopping centers, transportation or community facilities, or to provide pedestrian circulation within a subdivision. These sidewalks are to be provided by the developer and built in accordance with the General Design Standards of the City. More detailed information about sidewalk construction can be found in the Carrollton Comprehensive Subdivision Ordinance, Article X, Section G.
Article X, Design Standards Section J, Public Sites and Open Spaces, outlines the city requirement to provide recreational areas in the form of neighborhood parks as a function of residential subdivision development. Land subdivided for residential development must include either dedicated park land or the payment of a fee in lieu of dedication, as determined by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on standards and guidelines in the Comprehensive
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 14
Plan. The purpose is to provide for the subdivision’s neighborhood park and recreational facilities. The City has the option not to accept a developer proposed park dedication, but may require other land be dedicated or payment of a fee in lieu of park land dedication.
Section J.7 states that fees collected must be credited to the service area account in which the residential subdivision is located. Section J.8 states that park fees collected in lieu of land acquisition must be used solely for acquisition and/or development of neighborhood park facilities to benefit persons in the subdivisions where the funds were collected.
In the Carrollton Comprehensive Subdivision Ordinance. Article XI Construction and Improvements, Section K, Sidewalks, 5-foot sidewalks are discussed. Section K.1 states that if the developer desires to construct minimum 5 foot wide sidewalks which abut the right-of-way line within the entire subdivision, a one-foot wide pedestrian/utility easement is to be provided on private property along the entire length of the right-of-way. Section K.2 states that when future right-of-way improvements are planned, it may be appropriate to delay sidewalk construction and that funds may be placed in an escrow account. An escrow account may also be established if sidewalks are to be built on city park land or greenbelt property, as designated in the Comprehensive Plan.
Potential changes in Carrollton’s Comprehensive Subdivision Ordinance are suggested in Chapter 5. Recommendations.
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 15
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 16
4. Concept Plan Refinement
The development of the concept plan was begun following the completion of base mapping showing existing, programmed, and planned trails both within and adjacent to Carrollton together with the Bicycle Level of Service (BLOS) analysis for collector streets and with schools, parks, and other civic destinations identified. This phase concentrated on identifying interconnected routes throughout the city and to adjacent cities, either along potential trails in greenbelts, rail corridors, utility corridors, or undeveloped land; together with on-street bikeways in order to serve potential destinations.
Once potential routes were identified, additional BLOS analysis was conducted as needed on either arterial or residential and local streets to evaluate the level of service on these streets. In addition, aerial imagery at 2-foot resolution from September 2002 was utilized to further evaluate potential trail corridors and identify the existence or absence of sidewalks along selected streets in Carrollton. Potential trail intersection issues, which could not be resolved through aerial reviews, were mapped and several site reviews were made to further evaluate these locations. This resulted in some routes being eliminated from consideration.
A meeting was held with DART personnel at their offices on October 13, 2004 and DART staff confirmed the suitability of timelines for DART’s accommodation of this plan, as preliminary engineering for the Northwest DART LRT line is set to begin in early summer 2005.
During plan development, several site visits were made with city staff to review intersection issues related to trails and greenbelts. In addition, general conditions of the sidewalk system and on-street conditions for bicyclists were noted. The consultant team visited the sites for the future DART rail stations. Additional visits assessed concerns at specific locations regarding the feasibility of trail/road
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 17 crossings and on-street bikeway connectivity across potential barriers such as railroads, roads and bridges.
Several trail corridors previously adopted in the 2004 parks master plan were determined to be not feasible within the identified corridor or a significantly revised preferred alignment within the corridor was identified. Two trail segments stand out: • The Country Place and Columbian Country Club trail alignment was moved to the Cotton Belt Railroad owned by DART • The Trinity River Elm Fork corridor trail was moved eastward to the east side of McInnish Sports Complex and the proposed athletic fields on the old landfill – or possibly along the west side of the North Texas Tollway Authority (NTTA) corridor. Other refinements included identifying the most likely suitable alignment along Carrollton’s greenbelts and adjusting the previously planned trails accordingly on the map.
The sidewalk system was mapped utilizing notations from site reviews or aerial imagery. The focus of the sidewalk system development was access to transit, including future rail stations and bus routes, schools, parks, shopping and major employment destinations. Utilizing the initial mapping of data collected, a conceptual system was developed.
Community Input Meeting
Following the development of the conceptual system, the City Council was briefed and a community meeting was held on November 16, 2004 with approximately 60 people in attendance.
A slide presentation introduced attendees to the planning process, purpose and benefits of an integrated non-motorized system plan. Maps of the conceptual plan were laid out around the
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 18 room and attendees were encouraged to mark-up these maps to show additional desirable destinations or areas of concern. In addition to marking up the maps, citizens were encouraged to make both oral and written comments. Staff advised attendees that they could view the map at city offices and make further comments. After several weeks, the post meeting comments and map mark-ups were provided for further evaluation. Comments from the map mark-up and comment forms are summarized in Appendix C. Community Meeting Citizen Comments.
Citizen input was incorporated into the mapping as needed and the development of recommendations was begun in early 2005. During this phase, the conceptual system was prioritized and reviewed with city staff, and preliminary system recommendations with master plan level cost estimates were developed.
Pedestrian and Bicycle System Prioritization
Proposed criteria were developed to prioritize the trails, on-street bikeways and sidewalks, and reviewed with staff on February 1, 2004. At this meeting, the scoring values for each criterion were reviewed and modifications made according to staff consensus. See Appendix D for trail and on-street bikeway detailed prioritization scoring values.
In addition, staff requested that sidewalks not be prioritized, and that a list of sidewalks along future rail station access bus routes as well as along streets in the city’s current Five Year Work Plan be provided to city staff.
Following this meeting, planned and proposed trails as well as potential on-street bikeways evaluated during the BLOS analysis were scored based on the criteria. For both potential trails
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 19 and on-street bikeways improved mobility is key. For trails, this factor totaled 40 of 100 possible points; for on-road bikeways 50 of 100 possible points.
Potential cost to implement trails or on-street bikeways is also an important factor. For trails, this factor totaled a maximum of 30 out of 100 points, for on-street bikeways 50 out of 100 points.
Finally, potential for a trail or on-street bikeway to provide for enhanced quality of life or environmental benefits was evaluated. For this factor, a total of 30 points for trails and 5 points for on-street bikeways was utilized.
See Appendices F and G for the detailed scoring of the trail segments and of the on-street bikeway segments recommended in this plan. Maps depicting the build-out of the trail and on- street bikeway system by priority, as well as the pedestrian system are discussed in Chapter 5. Recommendations.
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 20
Trail Segment Prioritization Criteria
The potential trails were scored under the general categories of Improved Mobility, Cost, and Quality of Life/Environmental as shown below:
Figure 4-1 Trail Segment Prioritization Criteria
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 21
On- Street Bike Route Segment Prioritization Criteria
The potential on-street bikeways were also scored under the general categories of Improved Mobility, Cost, and Quality of Life/Environmental as shown below:
Figure 4-2 On-Street Bike Route Segment Prioritization Criteria
Following the prioritization and development of the map to include prioritization, a meeting was held on March 10, 2005 with city staff to review the on-street bikeway analysis and proposed trails and to obtain any alignment concerns and suggested alternatives.
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 22
Following this meeting, these refinements were made and a subset of the analysis mapping was prepared for review as a proposed system, together with master plan level cost estimates. On March 22, 2005 a meeting was held with city staff to review the proposed system recommendations together with master plan level cost estimates, and to get any additional feedback. On April 25, comments regarding the mapped recommendations were received from the city and comments were incorporated into the plan. Following this input, the preliminary final plan document was prepared.
The proposed plan was presented and discussed at a City Council Work Session on July 5, 2005, then presented to the Park and Recreation Advisory Board on July 25, 2005, and the Planning and Zoning Commission on August 4, 2005. Following presentations to these bodies, revisions to the plan were made as directed by city staff. On August 16, 2005 a final presentation was made to the Carrollton City Council at a public hearing, where the plan was adopted.
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 23
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 24
5. Recommendations
Carrollton has an abundance of greenway resources, is preparing for the initiation of DART light rail service by 2010 and has established transit-oriented zoning around the future Downtown and Trinity Mills stations. The convergence of these resources and development opportunities has to a large degree driven the phasing of recommendations for this pedestrian and bicyclist transportation and recreation network plan.
Overall, the focus of this plan has been on improved mobility for pedestrians and bicyclists and the potential for these modes to support transit ridership (both the DART light rail and bus feeder system as well as the future Denton County Transit Authority Commuter Rail system) while also enhancing recreational trail opportunities.
Cost to implement the facilities needed to encourage and support non-motorized travel has also been a key factor in prioritization of individual segments. Finally, quality-of-life factors for Carrollton residents, employees and visitors have been evaluated. The specific criteria used to score various trail and on-street bikeway segments were discussed in the previous chapter.
The sequencing of the non-motorized system’s development is depicted in this chapter, showing what is envisioned to be accomplished in each of three phases (referred to as Priority 1, Priority 2, and Priority 3). In this chapter, the overall trail and bikeway system available at each phase of implementation is shown.
In addition to the overall system, five focus areas within the city are described in more detail in this chapter. These include: • Downtown Carrollton DART LRT Station Area • Trinity Mills DART LRT Station Area • Hutton Branch greenway corridor • Furneaux Creek greenway corridor • Elm Fork of the Trinity River greenway corridor.
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 25
It is anticipated that it may take 25 years to fully develop this plan – 5-6 years for the Priority 1 system, 10-11 years for the Priority 2 system, and another 9-10 years to complete this plan. Changes in a segment’s priority may occur, especially for Priority 2 and Priority 3 segments, due to potential incorporation with capital improvement projects not yet scheduled, or concurrent with private sector development or redevelopment.
Citywide Priority 1 Trail and On-Street Bikeway System
Recommendations for the trail system are based primarily on providing citywide access from Carrollton’s greenway resources, including parks, utility corridors and rail corridors. Priority 1 trails are recommended to be 12-feet wide and are primarily those with access to the future rail stations and other destinations with significant potential for heavy use.
Priority 1 trails are shown in Figure 5-1. Figure 5-2 depicts Priority 1 trails together with Priority 1 on-street bikeways. Priority 1 trails include: • DART rail-trail from the Trinity Mills rail station south to the Carrolton – Farmers Branch city limit. • Hutton Branch greenway trail from the DART rail-trail to the existing Josey Ranch Sports Complex trails • TXU easement trail from the DART rail-trail at Ken Good Park to Old Denton Road • Furneaux Creek greenway trail from the DART rail-trail, along a new east-west road in the Trinity Mills DART station area to a sidepath along Dickerson Parkway to Furneaux Creek, completing trail connections as far east as Peters Colony Road at Woodlake Lake and Greenbelt A east of the BNSF RR • Furneaux Creek greenway trail westward from the DART rail-trail to the Trinity Elm Fork • Dudley Branch trail from Rosemeade Recreation Center to Timbercreek Park.
While this master plan has evaluated potential bike routes based on the thoroughfare plan and existing traffic counts, existing street widths and lane configurations should be compared against the City Engineering Department’s General Design Standards for streets, prior to any final determination regarding on-street route signing. In addition, on-site inspections should be conducted to confirm that secondary factors, including frequency of commercial driveways, percentage of truck and bus traffic, and frequency of on-street parking turnover, do not excessively impact conditions for bicycling. More information about Secondary Stress Level Factors can be found in Appendix B. City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 26
Figure 5-1 Priority 1 Multi-Use Trails
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 27
Figure 5-2 Priority 1 Multiuse Trails and On-Street Bikeways
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 28
On-Street Bike Route Signing
On-street bikeways can be signed as bike routes; the cost to do this is included in the cost estimates in the following chapter. Alternatively, a printed map showing a network of currently bike-friendly streets could be provided to citizens, with no on-street signing. Another alternative is to place a map of bike-friendly streets on the City’s website. If bicycling is to be encouraged, on-street signing supplemented by a map of the currently signed system is recommended. The city should also work with DART to help get this information into the hands of DART patrons.
In some instances, Priority 1 bikeways will need additional work in order to become viable transportation corridors. Those street segments, which need additional work, together with potential treatments, include: • Crosby Road from east of Milam Way to Josey Lane (Segment B15.3) is currently accessible to experienced cyclists (BLOS C). Crosby Road’s intersection with Josey Lane should be improved with the FY2006 CIP improvement. This segment of Crosby Road should be widened to include a 14-foot curb lane in the future, when funds become available. • Main Street from Oak Street to Broadway Street (Segment B29) is currently bike friendly (BLOS A-B). However, improvements should be made to ensure it continues to remain so with Belt Line Road and DART infrastructure improvements. • McCoy Road from Northland Drive to McCoy Court (Segment 30.2) is currently accessible only to experienced cyclists (BLOS C). This is most likely due to traffic volumes in the vicinity of McCoy Elementary School, where the speed limit should be 20 mph during peak traffic periods. At 20 mph, this segment is a bike-friendly BLOS B. Further evaluation of potential treatments should be undertaken. This stretch of McCoy Road is included in the Jackson Road to Trinity Mills Road CIP improvements scheduled for FY 2008. • McCoy Road, north and south of Crooked Creek Drive (Segment 30.4) is currently accessible only to experienced bicyclists (BLOS C). Traffic counts for this segment are old, but sightlines from Crooked Creek Dive are poor. Potential solutions include lowering the speed limit of this segment to 30 mph and/or placing bikes-on-roadway warning signs on McCoy Road at the Crooked Creek Drive approaches. With 18-foot wide lanes, there is adequate space for cyclists.
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 29
• McCoy Road north and south of Palisades Drive (Segment B30.6) is currently accessible only to experienced bicyclists (BLOS C), even with 18-foot wide lanes. Again, the traffic counts are old. Lowering the speed limit of this stretch to 30 mph may be needed. • Perry Road from Pearl Street to Belt Line Road (Segment 37.3) is currently accessible only to experienced bicyclists (BLOS C). Once again, the traffic volume before and after school has probably resulted in the diminished bike-friendly score. The speed limit should be 20 mph in the school zone during peak usage, improving the score to a bike- friendly (BLOS B). • The Denton Drive jog (Segment 104.2), connecting Russel Street to the east and west, is a BLOS C connection that could be restriped to achieve a BLOS B. Alternatively, bikes on roadway or bike crossing warning signage at the approaches to Russel Street is another alternative.
Citywide Priority 2 Trail and On-Street Bikeway System
The Priority 2 trails and bikeways support and expand the Priority 1 system. Priority 2 trails are recommended to be 10-feet in width, but should be evaluated prior to design to confirm that this width will be adequate for each particular segment, given the anticipated volume and user characteristics existing on the previously implemented Priority 1 segments.
Priority 2 trails include the following key additions: • Cottonbelt rail-trail • Elm Fork of the Trinity River trail in the vicinity of the Dimension Tract/ McInnish Sports Complex/ Elm Fork Nature Preserve • Elm Fork of the Trinity River trail in the vicinity of the T.C. Rice Jr Athletic Complex/ Indian Creek Golf Course • Dudley Branch greenway trail • Extensions of Priority 1 trails and potential developer built trails.
Figure 5-3 depicts Priority 2 trails, together with Priority 1 trails. Figure 5-4 depicts the completed Priority 1-2 trails and on-street bikeways, showing the system then available to bicyclists.
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 30
Figure 5-3 Priority 1-2 Multi-Use Trails
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 31
Some Priority 2 bikeways will need additional work in order to become viable transportation corridors. Those street segments, which need additional work, together with potential treatments, include: • The Josey Lane (Segment B12.1) jog from Country Club Drive to Hood Street is currently bike unfriendly or “inaccessible to bicyclists” (BLOS D). The right-of-way along this stretch is tight and options are limited. This route is needed to provide east-west access to the commercial areas south of the Cottonbelt Railroad and north of Belt Line Road and to connect this area into the system that will take people to the Downtown DART rail station. A potential low-cost treatment is to widen the sidewalk on each side of Josey Lane for bicycle access and to install bike crossing warning signs on the Josey Lane approaches to Country Club Drive and Hood Street. Another approach is to widen the Josey Lane curb lane to 15-feet to achieve a BLOS C. Reducing the speed limit to 30 mph, together with 15-foot wide curb lanes, would result in a bike-friendly BLOS B for this stretch of Josey Lane. • Crosby Road from Josey Lane to Broadway Street (Segment B15.2) has some BLOS C ratings, but is overall rated as BLOS D. This stretch of Crosby Road is in the FY2006 CIP. Crosby Road is an important east-west connector in the southern part of Carrollton and should be widened to 14 or 15-foot curb lanes, with some speed limit reductions from 35 to 30 to achieve the bike-friendly status of BLOS B. The Josey Lane/Crosby Road intersection should be included as part of this CIP project. Also the Perry Road bikeway jog across Crosby Road and the Larner Road to School Road bikeway jog across Crosby Road should be addressed as part of the Crosby Road CIP project. • Scott Mill Road from Trinity Mills Road to Northmoor Way (Segment B48.3) is suitable only for experienced bicyclists (BLOS C). Bikes-on-roadway signage is recommended for this area.
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 32
Figure 5-4 Priority 1-2 Multi-Use Trails and On-Street Bikeways
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 33
• Frankford Road from Standridge Drive to Pacifica Drive is a BLOS D jog along a 6-lane arterial (Segment B53.1). A potential low cost improvement for this jog is to widen the sidewalk along the south side of Frankford Road between Standridge Drive and Pacifica Drive. Cyclists would cross Frankford Road at the Standridge Drive signal. Bike crossing warning signs on Frankford Road on the approaches to Standridge Drive and Pacifica Drive are recommended. • Valwood Parkway from Hutton Road to Luna Road (Segment B76) is suitable only for experienced cyclists (BLOS C). Bikes on roadway warning signs or pavement marking signs are recommended. • Hutton Road from Crosby Road to the southern city limit of Carrollton (Segment B118) is suitable only for experienced cyclists (BLOS C). Bikes-on-roadway warning signs or pavement marking signs are recommended.
Citywide Priority 3 Trail and On-Street Bikeway System
To complete the system, there are a number of connecting trails, many of which are envisioned to be implemented in conjunctions with future developments. It should be expected that the exact alignments for these trails with developments may vary significantly from the map. These trails should serve these future developments and provide connectivity to the overall system. Both the overall alignments and the points of connection will in many cases need to be modified.
Priority 3 on-street bikeways are frequently those that require the most significant work in order to accommodate bicyclists. These projects are envisioned to be undertaken in conjunction with other future, as yet unidentified projects. These, together with the previously described trails and bikeways, will form the network which will ultimately serve all areas of the city to the extent feasible.
Priority 3 on-street bikeways, which required significant investment include: • Crosby Road from Broadway Street to Upfield Drive (Segment B15.1) is a 4-lane undivided collector with some BLOS C ratings, but is overall rated as BLOS D, inaccessible to bicyclists. This stretch should not be signed as a bike route until reconstructed with 14 to 15-foot wide curb lanes. This segment should include both pedestrian and bicycle accommodation when reconstructed. Enhanced pedestrian and bicycle access under IH-35E is needed when the interstate is improved in this area.
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 34
• The Hebron Parkway jog from Furneaux Road to Northcliff Drive (Segment B21.1) is a 6- lane arterial with a BLOS D. A potential low-cost solution is to widen the sidewalks on each side of Hebron Parkway to back-of-curb, install crosswalks and “bike crossing” warning signs on Hebron Parkway. Alternatively, the curb lane could be widened to 15- feet.
There remain significant barriers such as railroad rights-of-way, freeways, tollways, and waterways. Opportunities to cross these barriers should always be evaluated when infrastructure improvements are being considered, even if not shown in this plan.
Figure 5-5 shows the Recommended Trail System, with the Priority 1, Priority 2 and Priority 3 trails all shown. This map shows the entire recommended trail system, including potential nature trail areas and potential canoe launch. In Figure 5-6 the overall recommended trail and on- street bikeway system is shown.
Two areas where the alignment of planned trails vary significantly from the previously adopted park plan is the Elm Fork of the Trinity River trail from north of Sandy Lake Road to the Dimension Tract and in Country Place, a private development where the planned trail was moved east to a north – south utility easement between Marsh Lane and Chenault Drive, then along the Cottonbelt Railroad right-of-way south of Country Place.
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 35
Figure 5-5 Recommended Trail System
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 36
Figure 5-6 Recommended Trail and On-Street Bikeway System
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 37
Pedestrian System
Pedestrians are an important trail system user group. A pedestrian is defined as a person afoot or in a wheelchair. When pedestrians need to access transit, employment, shopping, cultural and other important destinations, they will need the support of the sidewalk system. This plan has looked at access to key destinations, with a focus on access to the DART rail and bus system, as well as access to schools and in N.O.T.I.C.E. neighborhoods.
While the sidewalk system has not been prioritized for this plan, in the future the city may want to evaluate its current methodology for retrofitting sidewalks. The 2004 AASHTO Guide for Planning, Design and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities recommends establishing priorities for retrofitting streets, a methodology for using the criteria to evaluate potential sites, and a prioritized list of sites. Criteria should be based on community needs, and may include: • Existing pedestrian volumes • Major pedestrian generators • Motor vehicle speed • Street classification • Crash data • School walking zones • Transit routes • Urban centers/neighborhood commercial areas • Disadvantaged neighborhoods • Missing links in the pedestrian system • Neighborhood priorities • Activity type • Transition plan improvements • Citizen requests • Street resurfacing programs.
A methodology for using selected criteria to evaluate potential sidewalk priorities should balance safety measures and pedestrian usage measures. An easy way is to use a map to identify overlapping priorities, such as along DART bus routes, proximity to schools, or neighborhood commercial areas. Another method is to assign points to an evaluation matrix, similar to the one
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 38
used in this plan to prioritize trails and on-street bikeways. For this plan, sidewalks were reviewed in specific corridors: along future rail-access bus routes and proposed bikeways, and to the future rail stations and to schools. Programmed sidewalks in N.O.T.I.C.E. neighborhoods were mapped and are shown as existing, programmed, or proposed.
In general, pedestrian provisions should be considered in all non-limited-access roadway projects and roadway reconstruction/rehabilitation projects. Currently the city builds sidewalks together with arterial reconstruction. Arterials are key links and generally have a greater-than- average potential for pedestrian use. These are streets with higher traffic speeds and volumes, resulting in the need to prioritize vehicular–pedestrian separation. In addition, the city constructs sidewalks in N.O.T.I.C.E. neighborhoods, under a city program where infrastructure improvements are bundled together area by area.
As parcels are developed, they must include sidewalks in most zoning categories. However, sidewalk policy revisions along IH-35E frontage roads are needed. It is recommended that Ordinance Number 2573 (dated November 7, 2000) be updated. Sidewalks should be included along IH-35E access roads at least within ½ mile of DART rail stations and along any service roads with bus route stops, as well as in mixed-use areas. Including a plan for sidewalks along TxDOT facilities should result in sidewalks being built in these locations as part of any TxDOT reconstruction.
Sidewalk policy revisions are also needed in industrial areas to assure the safety of workers using the DART bus system and then walking to their employment sites. Another area where the city needs to assure sidewalk continuity is across railroad rights-of-way. Currently, many otherwise-connected sidewalks are discontinuous at these locations, creating barriers, especially for users with disabilities.
It is recommended that Carrollton review its sidewalk standards to assure they conform to federal and regional guidelines.
Figure 5-7 depicts the full recommended trail system together with the recommended sidewalk network and future DART bus rail station access routes.
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 39
Figure 5-7 Recommended Trail System with Sidewalk System
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 40
Pedestrian and Bicycle System Focus Areas
Key areas of interest include the future DART station areas, key greenway corridors, and recent mixed use development areas. Five areas in Carrollton are described here in more detail: • Downtown Carrollton DART LRT Station Area • Trinity Mills DART LRT Station Area • Hutton Branch greenway corridor • Furneaux Creek greenway corridor • Elm Fork of the Trinity River greenway corridor.
Downtown Carrollton DART LRT Station Area
Figure 5-8 Downtown Carrollton DART LRT Station Area
Access to the Downtown Carrollton DART Rail Station north of Belt Line Road and non-motorized circulation within the planned transit-oriented developments was coordinated with the City and its consultants as well as with DART. Figure 5-8 depicts a focus area one-fourth mile around the station showing an overlay of existing conditions, with recommended sidewalks and on-street bikeways providing access along existing and future roads to the DART Downtown LRT station and surrounding areas.
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 41
Figure 5-9 Illustrative Concept Plan for Downtown Station Area
The two-lane 36-foot streets with parking both sides and 11-foot travel lanes in this transit oriented development will be narrower than are frequently used in the city. The speed limits will be lower – 20 mph. Bicyclists should be able to operate as a vehicle within this traffic mix.
This area will also be served by two Priority 1 trails: • DART rail-trail is recommended to be placed beneath the elevated rail line from north of Sandy Lake Road to south of Crosby Road. • A trail from the east along the north side of Hutton Branch is planned to intersect with the DART rail-trail north of Hutton Branch. In later phases, this trail will extend westward along the north side of Hutton Branch under IH-35E to the Trinity River Elm Fork Trail.
On-street bikeways recommended in this area include: • A north-south route (B108) along a new road, which will connect Myers Road south of Belt Line Road to Jackson Street north of Hutton Branch • An extension of B108 westerly along Carroll Avenue (B111) to Old Downtown Carrollton, then along a new couplet on 4th Avenue (B119) and Main Street (B29) under IH-35E and along Upfield Drive(B55) to Crosby Road. • An east-west bike route (B109) north of Belt Line Road on Walnut Street providing access to the DART station area.
Figure 5-8 also depicts the planned DART rail station access bus routes in this area. In addition, sidewalks are envisioned throughout this future transit-oriented mixed-use area, including along all bus routes within one-fourth mile of the DART station, and any newly constructed roadways.
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 42
Trinity Mills DART LRT Station Area
Figure 5-10 Trinity Mills DART LRT Station Area The Trinity Mills DART rail station area is also being planned to support transit. Plans for transit-oriented redevelopment of this area include both “Urban Core” and “Urban Center” areas according to plans prepared by Townscape, Inc.
Trails which are recommended to provide access to the Trinity Mills DART LRT station include: • A trail (T27) along the north side of Furneaux Creek to Dickerson Parkway, then along the side of Dickerson Parkway (T107) to north of President George Bush Turnpike (PGBT), where it crosses to the west side of Dickerson Parkway before traveling under PGBT with at- grade signalized crossings. South of PGBT the trail continues along the west side of Dickerson Parkway to, then eastward along a new station access road being planned, to the Trinity Mills rail station. • The DART rail-trail (T45) is proposed to travel east of the DART right-of-way from the Trinity Mills rail station to Sandy Lake Road. In the area south of Jackson Road the DART right-of-way is constrained and will require obtaining alternative trail right-of-way. A proposed Priority 2 rail-trail (T44) continues north to the Trinity River Trail south of Indian Creek Golf Course. • The Furneaux Creek trail (T28) continues from the juncture of the DART rail-trail south of PGBT along the south side of Furneaux Creek to the Trinity River Trail, providing recreational access to the Trinity River greenway. • A trail from the east (T57) is recommended, which terminates at the DART rail-trail in Ken Good Park, after following the TXU corridor east-west across almost the entire width of the city. The Priority 1 segment for this trail extends to Old Denton Road on the east; Priority 2 to Ward Steenson Park, and Priority 3 to Tarpley Road.
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 43
Figure 5-11 Trinity Mills DART LRT Station Area Concept
Sidewalks are also recommended along bus routes and new roadways within one-fourth mile of the station. There are no on-street bike routes recommended in this area, bounded on the north, west and southwest by IH-35E and the PGBT.
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 44
Hutton Branch Greenway Corridor
The Hutton Branch greenway corridor provides an important early development opportunity in the implementation of Carrollton’s trail system. Hutton Branch flows just north of the future Downtown Carrollton DART rail station, and early implementation of a trail along the greenway can help meet both transportation and recreation needs, encouraging use of this rail station from areas as far east as Mill Valley Park at Carmel Drive. This trail will also support the downtown area redevelopment initiatives. In the future this trail will also provide access to trails along the Trinity River Elm Fork greenbelt.
In this plan, the Hutton Branch trail is divided into one existing, and six previously planned trail segments with varying priorities for development. The Priority 1 trail segments travel eastward from the Downtown Carrollton DART rail station area along the north side of Hutton Branch to Carmel Drive east of the Josey Ranch Sports complex. • T8 runs from the proposed DART rail-trail (junction of T46 and T47) on the west to the existing trails (T7) in the Josey Ranch Sports Complex. About midway through this stretch is a proposed trail connection (T86) to a proposed trail along the DART-owned Cottonbelt (CBRR) rail-trail (T84). • T6 is extends eastward from the existing trail (T7) in the Josey Ranch Sports Complex. The trail segment will pass under the Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF RR) into Jimmy Porter Park, then across Josey Lane probably at a user- activated signal into the Josey Ranch Greenbelt. •
Figure 5-12 Hutton Branch Greenway
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 45
• T5 will extend T6 from the Josey Ranch Greenbelt northeasterly to the bike-friendly Carmel Drive.
Priority 2 Hutton Branch Trail segments extend from the Priority 1 trails. • T4, a previously planned trail, veers southeasterly at the junction of T5 and T6, just east of Josey Lane in the Josey Ranch Greenbelt, traveling easterly through the greenbelt, to just west of Ted Polk Middle School, where it connects to T3 and the CBRR rail-trail. • T53, a proposed trail, extends T5 northeasterly from Carmel Drive under Keller Springs Road into Mill Valley Park, where it passes under the BNSF RR trestle into Ward Steenson Park and to the TXU easement, connecting with the proposed T55 easement trail. City Hall, the Police Station and Amphitheater can all be accessed from this trail. • T9 extends westward along Hutton Branch from the junction of the proposed DART rail-trail, travels under IH-35E to the proposed CBRR rail-trail north of Belt Line Road.
Finally, T10, a previously planned Priority 3 trail extends from under Belt Line Road southwestward to the Dimension Tract, where it connects to the planned Trinity River Trail at T11.
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 46
Furneaux Creek Greenway Corridor
Figure 5-13 Furneaux Creek Greenway Corridor
The Furneaux Creek greenway corridor provides another important early development opportunity in the implementation of Carrollton’s trail system. Significant trail segments are already in place or are programmed. Furneaux Creek flows from northeast Carrollton, north of Plano Parkway southwesterly to the intersection of President George Bush Turnpike and IH-35E, then a short distance to the Trinity River Elm Fork. The trail will leave the Furneaux Creek corridor to follow a sidepath along Dickerson Parkway, which will take people to the Trinity Mills DART rail station. Early implementation of this trail can help meet both transportation and recreation needs, encouraging use of this rail station from areas as far east as Greenbelt A north of Frankford Road. It connects with many bike and pedestrian friendly streets along the way.
In this plan, the Furneaux Creek trail is separated into one programmed and three existing segments, 11 previously-planned segments, and one proposed segment with varying priorities for development.
The Priority 1 segments travel both east and west from the Trinity Mills DART rail station area along the branches of Furneaux Creek. Priority 1 trails include: Figure 5-14 Furneaux Creek trail prototype underpass McCoy Road
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 47
• The planned trail (T27) runs eastward from Dickerson Parkway along the north side of Furneaux Creek to west of Old Denton Road where a spur connects to bike- friendly Cambridge Drive and continues via T26 under Old Denton Road to west of McCoy Road where it moves to the south side and travels under McCoy Road to the programmed trail (T25) in Nob Hill Greenbelt (see Figure 5-14). At T27’s west terminus east of Dickerson Parkway, the trail leaves the Furneaux Creek greenbelt to provide access to the Trinity Mills DART
rail station and the DART rail-trail along the old Union Pacific Railroad corridor. • From the junction of the programmed trail (T25) at the east end of Nob Hill Greenbelt, the trail splits. Planned T24.1 is envisioned to replace the existing trail in Greenbelt 3. It will connect to the existing trail (T24) in Greenbelt 2. The Josey Lane at-grade crossing of the existing trail is currently unmarked and needs attention, either a user-activated at- grade signalized crossing, or an underpass crossing of Josey Lane. • An existing trail (T22 and T24) runs through Greenbelt 2 from Josey Lane, then under Frankford Road west of Scott Mill Road. A short planned trail (T21) is needed to connect this trail to the existing trail (T20) east of Scott Mill Road in Greenbelt 4A. • Also from the eastern terminus of the programmed trail (T25) in Nob Hill Greenbelt, another planned trail (T19) heads north using an existing bench under Frankford Road, then follows the north side of the creek through Greenbelt 6, terminating at Josey Lane, north of Frankford Road. There are currently limited underpass opportunities for crossing Josey Lane into Greenbelt 5. • A planned trail (T18) east of Josey Lane travels north along the west side of Woodlake Lake, then south of Peters Colony Road to an at-grade crossing of Peters Colony Road (see Figure 5-15).
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 48
Figure 5-15 Peters Colony Crossing Concept • Finally, a planned trail (T28) along the south side of Furneaux Creek extends from the DART rail-trail north of the Trinity Mills station, under IH-35E and the PGBT to the Trinity River trail at the junction of trail segments T14 and T42.
In addition, the Furneaux Creek trails include eastward extensions from the Priority 1 trails in later phases. Priority 2 previously planned trails include: • T23 which extends from the existing T24 trail west of Scott Mill Road along the south side of the creek in Greenbelt 1, to the BNSF RR. • T17 extends northeastward from the at-grade crossing at Peters Colony through Greenbelts 7 and 8, and into Greenbelt 9 to south of Branch Hollow, where Priority 3 segments begin.
The Priority 3 planned trails extend from the northern terminus of T17 as T16 to the BNSF RR and T15 the Kansas City Southern Railroad (KCS RR). In addition one proposed trail (T59) extends under the KSCRR along the currently undeveloped land west on the BNSF RR, north to the city limit.
Elm Fork of the Trinity River Greenway Corridor
Much of Carrollton’s western city limit is along the east side of the Elm Fork of the Trinity River. It is the Trinity River that has given its name to a now decade-old regional recreational trails initiative, the Trinity Trails system. Many cities throughout the region are working on their jurisdiction’s part of this greenway project.
While none of the trails along the Elm Fork in Carrollton are shown as a Priority 1 facility, the opportunity to partner with other entities to create partnerships and interjurisdictional connections should be seized.
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 49
Figure 5-16 Trinity River Greenway Corridor The City of Lewisville has plans to implement its segment of the Trinity Trail to enter Carrollton just south of Hebron Parkway at the Trinity River bridge (T103). The City of Coppell has a planned connection (T100) into Carrollton along the CBRR and has also expressed interest in a trail across the Elm Fork of the Trinity River (T101) along Sandy Lake Road.
The City of Irving is well on its way to making connections along the west side of the river and has currently constructed trails as far north as IH-635 (LBJ Freeway), with plans to continue to the Coppell junction with Grapevine Creek. Irving is constructing 12-foot wide concrete hike and bike trails in-house, and is also planning natural surface trails for equestrians, providing Carrollton an opportunity to continue equestrian trails along the east side of the Elm Fork of the Trinity River.
From north to south the Trinity River trail connections include: • Lewisville’s planned Trinity Trail enters Carrollton at the T103 bridge just south of Hebron Parkway where the Elm Fork turns westward into Lewisville. A proposed Priority 3 trail (T73) continues northward along the Elm Fork past Coyote Ridge Golf Course. The planned Priority 2 Carrollton Elm Fork of the Trinity River trail (T39) turns southward to the UPRR/DART trestle at the southern end of Indian Creek Golf Course. T78 travels eastward to existing multi-family south of Hebron and continues eastward (T77) past SH 121. • The planned Priority 2 Elm Fork of the Trinity River trail (T40) continues southward through Indian
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 50
Creek Golf Course to the proposed DART rail-trail (T44) north of Frankford Road. A proposed canoe launch is located in this reach. • The planned Priority 3 trail (T42) continues southward under the UPRR/DART trestle past the southern end of the planned T.C. Rice, Jr. Athletic Complex to Furneaux Creek trail (T28), with its access to the Trinity Mills DART station. Along the way, an opportunity exists to connect across the Elm Fork (T102) to planned trails in Lewisville, just southwest of IH- 35E. • At Furneaux Creek the planned Priority 3 Elm Fork of the Trinity River trail (T14) continues southward, past some significant wooded areas, to Sandy Lake Amusement Park and the proposed Sandy Lake Road trail to Coppell. • The planned Priority 2 Elm Fork of the Trinity River trail (T12) continues southward west of PGBT past the proposed athletic fields and the existing Elm Fork Nature Preserve trails, to the planned Priority 2 CBRR trail to Coppell north of Belt Line Road. • The planned Priority 2 Elm Fork of the Trinity River trail (T11) continues southward, under the CBRR trestle and Belt Line Road, through the Dimension Tract where it connects to two Priority 3 trails: the planned Hutton Branch trail (T10), and the proposed trail (T95) along Crosby Road which continues to Upfield Drive as a sidepath, providing access to this employment area. • The proposed Priority 3 Elm Fork of the Trinity River trail (T96) continues southward west of PGBT, connecting with a proposed spur (T97) under PGBT into the Valwood Improvement District at Luna Road. • A proposed trail connection (T98) continues southward to the Elm Fork of the Trinity River trail’s southernmost point in Carrollton, where it crosses the Elm Fork of the Trinity River (T99) into Irving’s Sam Houston Trail Park, providing connection opportunities for a hike and bike trail as well as equestrian trails.
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 51
Ordinance Review Recommendations
A review of the Carrollton Comprehensive Subdivision Ordinance related to sidewalks and park land dedication fees resulted in several instances where the City may want to evaluate the adequacy of its standards.
Design Standards, Article X, Section G, Sidewalks should be reviewed related to exemptions for sidewalks along freeway frontage roads, as well as in industrial areas. In particular, sidewalks along freeway frontage roads within ½ mile of DART rail stations, along streets with DART bus stops and within ¼-½ mile of these bus stops, are recommended in order to support transit use and provide safety to transit patrons. Sidewalk waivers should not be granted within ½ mile of schools, parks, civic and shopping areas.
Article X, Design Standards, Section J, Public Sites and Open Spaces requires that park land dedication fees be used within the service area collected for neighborhood parks. It is recommended that this requirement be reviewed, due to the overall build-out of the city and the opportunity to serve future developments by utilizing these funds for development of the trail system.
In the Carrollton Comprehensive Subdivision Ordinance, Article XI, Construction and Improvements, Section K, Sidewalks, 5-foot sidewalks are discussed. However, no minimum sidewalk width was called out in either Article X or Article XI. Minimum sidewalk widths are recommended to be 5 feet in residential areas with a planting strip or 6 feet back-of-curb. Along non-CBD arterials, minimum 6 foot sidewalks with planting strips; or 8 feet back-of-curb. See Chapter 7, Facilities Design Guidance for more details.
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 52
6. Master Plan Cost Estimates
Currently there are approximately 3 miles of hard surface trails in the city of Carrollton. This plan recommends just over 62 miles of trails at full buildout, which is anticipated to take just over 25 years at a total cost of approximately $2.8 million per year. Many of these trails will utilize one of the cost reimbursement grant programs available for trail design and construction. Others of these trails are envisioned to be built by the private sector in conjunction with development.
Currently there are no officially designated bike routes in Carrollton. This plan recommends just over 51 miles of on-street bikeways resulting in more than 113 miles of bike system connectivity at full buildout. The total estimated on-street bikeway implementation cost is $691,000. The entire trail and on-street bikeway system is estimated to cost $70,838,000. This will require an average total investment including grants and private investment of $2.8 million per year average over 25 years.
Priority 1 Trails
Of the 62 miles of trails, 12.5 miles have been included as Priority 1 or Phase 1 trails. These are proposed to be 12-feet wide in areas with heavy use, predominantly in the vicinity of, or providing access to, the DART rail stations at Downtown Carrollton and at Trinity Mills.
Masterplan-level costs have been calculated using information provided in the North Central Texas Council of Governments’ Mobility 2025: The Metropolitan Transportation Plan, 2004 Update. For 12-foot wide concrete trails along publicly owned right of way (including bridges, overpasses, underpasses and other major structures) costs are calculated at $1,280,000 per mile, or $242.42 per linear foot.
The total cost to implement Priority 1 trails described in this plan is $16,049,000. Many of these trails should score highly when competing for regionally-administered air quality funds from the federally-funded Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) program. While a 20 percent match is required by law, regional planning documents anticipate an overmatch. For the purposes of this plan, an average of a 35 percent local match for all Priority 1 projects would
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 53 result in a local cost of $5.62 million, with the balance being achieved through various transportation programs utilizing federal funds.
Priority 2 and 3 Trails
Priority 2 and Priority 3 trails are estimated as 10-foot wide trails, using regional masterplan- level cost estimates, (adjusted to reduce the width of the concrete trail from 12-feet to 10-feet). However, the cost for bridges, overpasses, etc has been maintained, resulting in a cost of $218.75 per linear foot.
Twenty-six (26) miles of Priority 2 trails have been identified in this plan, with a total estimated cost of $29,999,000. If 50 percent of these trails compete successfully for Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) Statewide Transportation Enhancement Program (STEP) funds (using an 80/20 match) and the other half is built with local funds, the cost to the city would be $18 million. For trails built with local funds, there are significant potential cost savings due to the absence of federal funding TxDOT compliance and oversight requirements.
Finally there are 20.9 miles of Priority 3 trails, at a cost of $24,114,000, identified in this plan. Some of these are anticipated to be built by the private sector with development, others may compete for various TxDOT, Texas Parks and Wildlife or foundation funds, and some will be built with local funds.
Figure 6-1 Master Plan Level Costs by Priority for Recommended Facilities
Facility Existing Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Total Trails 2.8 12.5 26.0 20.9 62.2 On-Street 0.0 42.8 7.7 0.5 51.1
Miles Total 2 .8 55.4 33.7 21.4 113.3
Trails - $ 16,049 $ 29,999 $ 24,114 $ 70,162 s r
a On-Street - $ 303 $ 210 $ 177 $ 691 ll
1,000 Total - $ 16,352 $ 30,209 $ 24,291 $ 70,852 Do
Almost all Priority 1 bikeways are already bike friendly and will need only signing to be established as bike routes. For residential streets and some two-lane collectors, cost estimates include only on-street bike route signage. For routes along four-lane collectors and some two- lane collectors, on-street pavement marking as well as the route signage is included in the estimates. Restriping to create wider curb lanes in order to achieve bike-friendly BLOS B is
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 54 recommended for a short distance along Denton Drive at Russel Road. A collector jog improvement in conjunction with other future widening is recommended on Crosby Road from east of Milam Way to Josey Lane.
For a total estimated cost of $303,000, almost 43 miles of Priority 1 on-street bikeways can be signed as bike routes.
Funding for on-street bikeways is also eligible for CMAQ funding with at least a 20 percent match. One potential strategy with a good likelihood of success would be to submit a request for CMAQ funding to NCTCOG for the entire on-street system, offering a 25-35 percent ($173,000 – $242,000) local match.
Priority 2 Bikeways
Priority 2 bikeways for the most part require more significant improvements. These are important connectors to an otherwise already bike-friendly system of streets. A key reason these streets are identified as Priority 2 is that they require significant infrastructure improvement prior to signing.
As is the case for Priority 1 projects, these street segments are recommended to be signed, and in some cases to have pavement markings as well. Priority 2 segments include Josey Lane from Country Club Drive to Hood Street, where either 15-foot curb lanes need to be installed as a stand alone project or the sidewalks on each side of the street need to be widened for bike access; Crosby Road from Josey Lane to Broadway Street where 14-foot wide curb lanes are needed in conjunction with other widening; and Frankford Road from Standridge to Pacifica where sidewalk widening is recommended along Frankford Road’s south side in order to accommodate bicycle traffic.
The total estimated cost to implement 7.7 miles of on-street Priority 2 bike routes is $210,000.
Priority 3 Bikeways
Priority 3 bikeways will also need significant infrastructure improvement in order to become bike friendly. Crosby Road from Broadway Street to Upfield Drive should not be signed until it is reconstructed with wide outside lanes, and should be enhanced under IH-35E to improve both bicycle and pedestrian access when the freeway is improved. Hebron Parkway from Furneaux
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 55
Road to Northcliff Drive is another spot improvement that may either be improved with 15’ wide curb lanes or sidewalks widened to provide bike access along this jog.
These two projects, totaling .5 mile are estimated to cost $177,000, but are needed to create systemwide connectivity.
Cost estimates used to estimate costs for the on-street improvements are as following:
Figure 6-2 On-Street Improvement Costs
Ref # Improvement Type Cost
1 On-street signage for R2U or C2U streets $1,000/mile
2 On-street pavement marker for C2U, C4U and higher streets $8,000/mile
3 Restriping for selected C4U streets $10,000/mile
4 14’ curb lane arterial jog improvement in conjunction with $20/foot other widening 5 14’ curb lane arterial or collector jog improvement –stand $40/foot alone project 6 15’ curb lane arterial or collector job improvement in $30/foot conjunction with other widening 7 15’ curb lane arterial or collector jog improvement – stand $60/foot alone project
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 56
7. Facilities Design Guidelines
Multi-use trails integrated with on-street bikeways and sidewalks are key to a successful non- motorized system and can serve to encourage and support people who may choose to leave their cars at home by providing for at least part of the trip along a corridor without motorized traffic. This works far better if the trail is wide enough to support a mix of users including bicyclists and pedestrians, children on tricycles, people with disabilities in wheelchairs, seniors using walkers, mothers with baby strollers, people walking dogs, and in-line skaters. In-line skating, for example, is becoming increasingly popular on multi-use trails. These skaters require a smooth, hard surface with minimal aberrations, and greater trail width to accommodate their skating motion back and forth across the trail. Providing this wider, smoother trail results in a more accessible facility. Trail users may be recreating, exercising, heading to work or on other purposeful trips.
Just as Carrollton’s non-motorized trails must reflect the needs of the intended users, they also need to be sensitive to the environments through which they pass. Many factors must be considered when planning and designing trails for the variety of potential users. Trail types include paved multi-use (hike and bike) trails, natural surface trails for all terrain (off-road) bicycles, equestrian trails, and nature trails. The trail focus of this planning effort has been on paved multi-use trails, although opportunities for stand-alone recreational trails have also been identified.
Where trails merge with roadways, special consideration will need to be given to on-road segments to ensure bikeway and sidewalk continuity. While the proposed trail system provides access to many parks, schools and shopping areas in the city, many connections will need to be made via on-street routes utilizing continuous sidewalks and bicycle-friendly streets.
Different types of non-motorized facilities call for different design requirements. This chapter addresses multi-use trails, sidewalks and on-street bikeways; and the transition from trails to sidewalks or trails to on-street bikeways where trail users needs must also be met as they
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 57 transition to and move along the roadway environment. Other types of trails are also overviewed in this chapter.
Multi-Trail Design Guidelines
Multi-use trails – frequently referred to as hike and bike trails – are intended to serve a variety of user groups. They may travel through highly-urban areas a sidepath along a roadway, or placed along a tree-lined creek. They may be a key connector in a city or region-wide system, or provide access to a remote bird watching loop.
Key design considerations are discussed below; however, for detailed guidance on multi-use trails, implemented at least in part with federal transportation funds, refer to the 1999 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials’ (AASHTO) Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. For regional guidance, refer to the North Central Texas Council of Governments’ (NCTCOG) Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Planning and Design Guidelines.
For trail-associated signage, refer to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) for Streets and Highways, 2003 Edition, Part 9, Traffic Controls for Bicycle Facilities.
Corridor Width
For multi-use trails, a desired minimum corridor width of twenty-five feet (25’) is recommended. A wider corridor is usually more desirable in order to provide a cushion within which to adjust for landscape buffers, tree preservation and/or plantings, and to allow access to underground utilities.
Multi-use trail corridors within the roadway rights-of-way can sometimes be accommodated in narrower corridors, but great care should be given to allow sufficient setback from roadway traffic. Minimum corridor width (excluding aesthetic considerations) for multi-use paths along roadways is 17 feet and should be at least 5 feet from the back of the curb. If less than 5 feet, a physical barrier will be required between the path and the roadway, if federal funds are used.
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 58
Trail Design Speed
In general, a minimum design speed of 20 mph should be used, except on 12-foot or wider Regional Veloweb trails. These Veloweb trails are North Central Texas’ officially adopted transportation-oriented trails and should meet a 25 mph design speed. In congested areas where pedestrians predominate, such as in transit oriented districts, 15 mph can be used.
Multi-Use Trail Tread Width
Suburban multiuse trails should be a minimum of 10-feet wide, and 12-feet (or more) if heavy, diverse traffic is anticipated such as near rail stations and areas of mixed-use development. Substantial use by bicycles, joggers, skaters and pedestrians, large maintenance vehicles, and/or steep grades are some other conditions where it may be necessary or desirable to increase the width to 12 or even 14 feet.
In Carrollton, Priority 1 trails – including trails providing access to and from DART rail stations – are recommended to be 12-feet wide.
According to AASHTO guidance, 8-foot wide trails are not to be designated for multi-use, unless they are one-way. In rare instances, a reduced width of 8 feet for multi-use trails can be adequate. This reduced width for two-way multi-use trails should be used only where the following conditions prevail: (1) bicycle traffic is expected to be low, even on peak days or during peak hours, (2) pedestrian use of the facility is not expected to be more than occasional, (3) there will be good horizontal and vertical alignment providing safe and frequent passing opportunities, and (4) during normal maintenance activities the path will not be subjected to maintenance vehicle loading conditions that would cause pavement edge damage.
Generally, recommended pavement width for bicycle facilities, according to AASHTO’s 1999 Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, is:
Figure 7-1 Multi-use Bicycle Facility Width
Bicycle Facility Type Pavement Width TWO-WAY MULTIUSE TRAILS with high levels of use 12’ TWO-WAY MULTIUSE TRAILS with moderate levels of use 10’ ONE-WAY MULTIUSE TRAILS OR “GREENWALKS” 8’ ON-STREET SHARED-USE CURB LANES (for cyclists) 14 -15’
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 59
Trail Shoulders
A minimum 2-foot shoulder on each side of the trail with a maximum slope of 1:6 must be provided throughout the length of the trail if width is less than 12 feet. Shoulders should be flush with the trail edge. Shoulders should be wider (up to 5 feet) if steeper side-slopes are present such as when crossing over culverts or large drain pipes, or if adjacent to a roadway or creek edge.
Choice of Surfaces
Choice of paving relies in part on the stability of soils beneath the trail. Actual soil types and drainage characteristics in any given corridor must be prime considerations as plans are developed for establishing a trail.
Concrete is by far the most durable surface, especially in areas that flood. While less expensive to install, asphalt costs more to maintain a smooth, even surface. Concrete trails are more likely to be serviceable during extended wet periods. Asphalt paving breaks down quickly if subjected to extended periods of wetness and in the absence of heavy vehicles to keep it compacted.
Concrete pavement endures best if at least 5-inches thick where no motorized traffic is expected, and 6-inches thick where the presence of motorized vehicles (police patrols, ambulances, maintenance vehicles) is anticipated. Stained (colored) and/or stamped concrete can alert users to changes in conditions.
Greenwalks
A hybrid facility which is narrower than a typical trail and wider than a typical sidewalk is called a “Greenwalk,” and implies its primary use as a walkway rather than as a bikeway. Pathways of 8 feet or less in width are not bicycle facilities, and should not be signed or designated as such. However, use by bicyclists is to be expected, especially by children, where streets do not adequately accommodate bicycling. Therefore bicycling on these paths should not be forbidden. Greenwalk as well as sidewalk bicyclists are
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 60 expected to yield to pedestrians and follow pedestrian protocol along these facilities and at intersections.
Sidewalks
Sidewalks are a critical component in the citywide network for non-motorized transportation. They must continue along the roadway from where a trail ends. Sidewalks need to be wide enough to comfortably accommodate the anticipated user volume, but should not be so wide as to look empty and uninviting to pedestrians.
Sidewalks, especially those that connect neighborhoods to schools or trails, should be wide enough to allow two people to walk side by side. Students will tend not to use narrow sidewalks, but will instead migrate into the street. In order for two people to do so on a sidewalk, a minimum of 5 feet is needed. A 6 to 8-foot sidewalk creates a more pedestrian friendly environment. If the sidewalk is adjacent to the curb a minimum of 6 feet is required.
For the most up-to-date and detailed sidewalk design guidance refer to the 2004 AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities.
Sidewalk Buffer Width
Buffers improve pedestrian safety and enhance the user experience. Buffer width between the sidewalk and roadway provides an area for landscaping, splash protection from roadway traffic, and space for curb ramps, street light poles, traffic signs, and benches. On-street parking also provides a buffer. In areas without parking, a buffer of 2 – 4 feet is desirable on local or collector streets and 5 – 6 feet on arterials or other major roads. Sidewalks should have a minimum of 7 – 8 feet of available corridor width.
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 61
Sidewalk Width
Desirable pavement width for pedestrian facilities is frequently greater than the minimum 4-foot clear width, according to the 2004 AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities. Desirable clear pavement width by location type is outlined in the following table:
Figure 7-2 Sidewalk Facility Width
Sidewalk Facility Type Pavement Width SIDEWALKS with planting strips along arterials, not in CBD 6’ – 8’ SIDEWALKS along arterials, flush against curb, not in CBD 8’ – 10’ SIDEWALKS in CBD 10’ – 15’ RESIDENTIAL SIDEWALKS with planting strip 5’ RESIDENTIAL SIDEWALKS flush against curb 6’ SIDEWALK minimum clear width (requires 5’ passing 4’ spaces at reasonable intervals)
Sidewalks in mixed-use, transit-oriented areas should be a minimum of 6 feet in width, with 10 feet frequently desirable. Additionally, at bus stops there should be an accessible paved waiting/loading area attached to the sidewalk for access and egress at front and rear bus doors.
At least 4 feet of walkway width must be kept clear of obstructions to accommodate accessibility by people in wheelchairs or using walkers, according to the 2004 AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities. Where sidewalks are less than 5-feet wide, passing spaces of at least 5 feet in width should be provided at reasonable intervals to accommodate turnarounds or two wheelchairs passing one another.
Sidewalk width across bridges and through underpasses should be the same or wider than clear width of existing sidewalks. The desirable width for a curb attached sidewalk on a bridge is 8 feet; a width of 4 feet is the minimum clear width.
Additionally, sidewalks must be designed, placed and constructed in accordance with the Carrollton Comprehensive Subdivision Ordinance’s General Design Standards, which are described in Article X, Design Standards and Article XI, Construction and Improvements.
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 62
On-Street Bikeways
It is essential that the street system accommodate people on bicycles. On- street bikeways should be designed to integrate bicycle traffic into the normal vehicular flow of the roadway. Ideally these routes will have low traffic speeds, low traffic volumes, and wide outside lanes if traffic volumes warrant. To the extent possible, these bikeways should have few stop signs or signal lights, few driveways, and minimal interference from turning or parking traffic. Figure 7-3 Typical Facility Widths
New roadway construction or roadway reconstruction should routinely provide on-street bicycle accessibility, especially on collector and arterial roads. Providing adequate space for road bicyclists is essential – signing as bike routes is optional. The need for design treatments should be reviewed during the design phase and continued through technical analysis which reviews traffic volumes and speeds, as well as other factors, to determine the needed lane widths. Generally, collector streets will need 14-foot wide outside (curb) lanes, and arterial streets and interstate highway service roads will need 15-foot wide outside lanes (not including the curb and gutter). State highways or farm-to-market roads should include smooth, flat, level shoulders at least 5 feet in width.
Shared-Use Curb Lanes
Like sidewalks, shared-use lane widths should reflect user volumes. Residential streets with very low traffic volumes and speeds and 12-foot lanes can easily accommodate even child cyclists. However, collectors with higher volumes and speeds will usually require 14-foot shared-use lanes, and arterials with moderate volumes and speeds may require 15-foot lanes to accommodate even adult cyclists. Prior to signing any on- street bikeway, corridor specific evaluations should be undertaken.
Figure 7-4 Chevron Pavement Marking City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 63
Figure 7-4 depicts the latest pavement marking design in the effort to improve the position of both motorists and cyclists in a shared-use curb lane. In a 2004 study, San Francisco’s Shared Lane Pavement Markings: Improving Bicycle Safety, prepared by Alta Planning + Design for San Francisco’s Department of Parking & Traffic, the Bike Chevron Marking was better understood by both motorists and bicyclists than earlier renditions. This marking is placed on the roadway in the position where the bicyclist is to ride.
On-Street Bikeway Signage
This plan includes the cost of bike route signs adjacent to the route and in some instances bike pavement markings. Bike route signs are recommended at approximately 10 per mile, while the pavement markings are recommended at 8 per mile.
Trail to Roadway Transitions
Multi-use trails require careful consideration where they interface with an existing roadway. The design must accommodate both bicyclists and pedestrians, who may be continuing along the trail or moving to the street and sidewalk system. Crossings at established intersections are the most appropriate treatment.
If trail/road intersections are required at mid-block, they should be clearly marked and located well away from intersections – 150 feet or more – to minimize the danger of distracted drivers engaged in turning maneuvers. However, each roadway crossing should be specifically designed to account for traffic volumes and speeds, as well as that roadway's design and view sheds. Clear, open sightlines must be maintained near and at every intersection in the system including at any mid-block crossings. A very effective way to enhance intersection safety is to increase motorists’ cone of vision by moving back the stop bar
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 64 in the travel lanes. This allows a wider view of pedestrian and bicycle cross traffic within the crosswalk.
Trail/Roadway Intersections
Intersection treatments involve either "active" vehicle traffic controls, such as stop signs or signals, or passive treatments, such as warning signs or flashing lights. Each intersection must be carefully reviewed prior to any modification from current status.
Effective design treatments for trail and sidewalk roadway-crossings include medians, ADA curb ramps, curb extensions and bulb-outs. Median refuges are essential for roadways with pavement widths wider than about 45 feet. Any longer crossing Figure 7-5 Off-set median crossing refuge should allow a refuge part of the way across for slower moving pedestrians. An angled walkway across the median, as shown in Figure 7-5, forces path users to face oncoming traffic from the median. This is especially effective for mid-block crossings, but can sometimes work at intersections, when the auto traffic stop-bar is set back. This configuration provides additional room on the median for queuing students, parents with baby strollers, and parents on bikes with trailers in tow.
Design Parameters for At-Grade Crossings
Figure 7-6 Peters Colony (2 lane collector) At-Grade Crossing – Sectional Elevation
9 Approaches perpendicular to crosswalk
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 65
9 Warning signs on trail where curves are less than design speed radius
9 Warning signs for approaching roadway traffic each direction
9 Marked crosswalk same width as trail
9 Raised crosswalk with 3 to 6-inch ‘table’
9 Trail stops for roadway traffic
9 Bollards prevent motor vehicle entry
9 Maintain clear sightlines to/from both trail and roadway approaching cross traffic.
Figure 7-7 At-Grade Trail/Roadway Crossing
Grade-Separated Intersections
The recommended clear width for grade-separated trail structures should include both the paved and shoulder widths. This provides a minimum horizontal shy distance from the railing or barrier, and provides maneuvering space to avoid conflicts with pedestrians and other bicyclists who may pause on the structure.
Figure 7-8 Conceptual McCoy Road Below Grade Crossing
At underpasses, desirable vertical clearance is 10 feet to accommodate maintenance and emergency vehicles. The minimum is 8 feet unless equestrians are present, in which case a 12- foot clearance is recommended.
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 66
Effective drainage is fundamental to the operation and maintenance of all pathways and trails. Side-slope erosion and subsequent failure can be avoided by implementing sound retaining wall structures wherever appropriate.
9 Minimum 8’ vertical clearance, ideal is 10’
9 Grades must be wheelchair-accessible
9 Warning signs on trail where turns are less than design speed radius
9 Minimum 42” high UBC-compliant railings
9 Maintain smooth transitions from trail edge to shoulders.
Figure 7-9 Conceptual McCoy Road Below-Grade Crossing – Sectional Elevation
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 67
Other Considerations
Signage
Wayfinding, warning and regulatory signs are as important to trails as they are to the road system. Wayfinding signage is an information system of visual, audible, and tactile elements which helps users experience an environment and facilitates getting from point A to point B. Warning signs should be used only where special regulations apply, or where hazards are not self-evident. The use of warning signs should be kept to a minimum to avoid losing effectiveness. Carrollton’s trail system should have unified signage.
Bicycle Parking
Bicycle parking is an important component of the non-motorized system, especially for bicyclists who are using their vehicles for purposeful trips. There are two types of bicycle parking, generally referred to as short-term and long-term parking.
Short-term bike parking is appropriate for retail customer use and should be located in a highly visible location within 50 feet of an entrance to the building. The rack must support the bicycle frame securely at two (2) points to prevent the bicycle falling over and damaging the frame, wheels or components. These racks should also accommodate high-security U-shaped shackle locks, which are used to lock the bicycle frame and front wheel to the rack. These racks should be securely anchored 18 inches into the ground.
Long-term bicycle parking is needed when the bicycle will be left in one location for a number of hours. This is especially true for expensive bicycles, which may be used by bike commuters, and which may cost up to $2500. Secure parking is a significant concern for these bicyclists, and its availability is a factor in travel mode choice. Examples of long-term parking include bike lockers and bike racks in a
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 68 parking garage within eyesight of a guard station or in a secure room inside a building. This type of parking should secure the bicycle both from the weather and theft.
Signage is needed not only to direct people to the available long-term bicycle parking where it is not clearly visible, but also serves to let potential riders know that bicycle parking is available at a particular location, serving education and encouragement functions.
While bicycle parking requirements were included in the Transit Center District Ordinance adopted in April 2005, bicycle parking is needed throughout the city to encourage the use of bicycles for purposeful trips and to provide safe and convenient bike parking places. For detailed information about bicycle parking, refer to the NCTCOG Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Planning and Design Guidelines.
Trailheads
Trailheads are needed where recreational users may arrive and depart during intermodal trips. Trailheads can also serve as gateways announcing the trail. Trailhead elements to consider include traffic control, wayfinding, and informational signage; automobile, horse trailer and/or bike parking or hitching posts where appropriate; benches, drinking water, lighting and kiosks.
Trails through Privately Held Properties
Where potential critical linkages are currently privately held, it may be necessary to acquire pedestrian access easements. Everyone benefits when trails in different subdivisions are connected with common destinations and with one another, providing longer, more useful and interesting walking or bicycling opportunities both for people in the proposed subdivision and those in adjoining neighborhoods. Prior to any major investment in construction costs, the City should negotiate permanent access through dedicated easements to ensure perpetual benefit to the public.
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 69
Soft Surface Trails
Natural surface nature trails have not been a focus of this planning effort. Such trails may extend as spur or loop trails from the multi-use trail system, or run parallel to the multi-use trail system. There are many trail users who prefer a soft surface experience – whether on foot, by bicycle, or on horseback. There may be single- user type trails extending from or adjacent to the multi-use trails which provide the kinds of contemplative experience an interpretive trail or a bird watching trail can provide; or the trail may be a challenging mountain bike course in a hilly or rocky area.
These trails should be in harmony with the surrounding environment. Care should be taken to fit the trail to the terrain, while taking advantage of scenic vistas. Drainage characteristics during minor and major storm events should be evaluated. Erosion can be reduced by avoiding sharp angular turns, and by crossing slopes diagonally. If possible, expose wet areas to sun and dry areas to shade. Switchbacks should be avoided unless the slope is 20 percent or greater or when needed for ADA access. Design should minimize excavation and cut-bank exposure.
Soft surface trails consisting of soil, chipped bark, or decomposed granite (compacted crusher- fines) have a low initial cost, but require a commitment to provide ongoing maintenance and replenishment of this type of surface. Use of these materials along nature trails or the interpretive loops will provide a formalized yet pervious surface for pathways. Any edging used to define these surfaces should be flush with the trail and the shoulder to avoid being a trip hazard.
Equestrian Trails
There are opportunities for equestrian connections into Carrollton’s Elm Fork corridor, especially ones that may extend the planned equestrian trails along the west side of the Elm Fork of the Trinity River in Irving. Where
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 70 practical, low-water crossings are preferable to bridges for equestrians. Avoid boggy and wet areas whenever possible. Equestrian bridge railings should be a minimum of 5-feet high. Guidance for designing and maintaining equestrian and hiking trails is available in the Trinity Trails Management Guide, available from NCTCOG. For a free copy of the guide, call 817/695- 9217 or browse: http://www.dfwinfo.com/publications.html
Trail Operations and Maintenance
Trails, pathways, sidewalks and streets should all be well maintained to ensure the safety and functionality of pedestrian and bicycle flow. Periodic refurbishing and debris removal will be necessary to assure ongoing serviceability. The degree of maintenance provided has a direct impact on facility service life, level of use, liability and community image. Inadequate facility maintenance conveys a feeling of lack of security or usability which results in fear for personal safety and leads to decreased facility usage.
A strong maintenance regimen – for both on-street and off-street routes – is essential to the security and safety of users. A chart of recommended standard maintenance elements to help ensure the safety and functionality of the pedestrian transportation system is included in the NCTCOG Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning and Design Guidelines, Section 4.5 Maintenance.
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 71
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 72
8. Funding Opportunities and Strategies
There are a variety of strategies to develop the trail system ranging from the use of volunteers for nature trails, to trails by developers as new subdivisions are established, to use of regional air quality funds for AASHTO-compliant trails providing rail station access in mixed-use areas.
The sidewalk system may be developed by the private sector with future development, or the city may need to retrofit previously developed areas in conjunction with other roadway improvements, through the use of CDBG funds or within the annual budget. Funds may be available on a competitive basis through federal or state programs under specific conditions.
Some on-street bikeway improvements may be made through an annual budget allocation or bond funding or even through federal funds administered by TxDOT or DART.
City Funds
The city currently has 2.4 million dollars available for trail development from the 2004 bond program approved by the citizens of Carrollton. Also, improvements to both the on-street bikeway and pedestrian network can be made through the N.O.T.I.C.E. program utilizing CBDG funds.
Approximately $200,000 is currently available through the parkland dedication fee. Currently these funds must be used within the Park District in which the associated development occurs. City staff is evaluating the need for a fee increase and ability to use these funds citywide for trail development.
U.S. Department of Transportation / Federal Highway Administration
The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) provided a 6-year funding mechanism (1998-2003) for federal surface transportation programs. TEA-21 has been extended numerous times, while its reauthorization has been debated in Congress. The new law, frequently referred to as either SAFETEA or TEA-3, is anticipated to be passed in the summer of 2005. Significant changes related to non-motorized programs are not anticipated in the new law.
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 73
Under the TEA-21 extensions, bicycle and pedestrian projects (Section 217 of Title 23) remain broadly eligible for all of the major funding programs where they compete with other transportation projects for available funding at the state or metropolitan planning organization level. Bicycle and pedestrian projects are currently eligible for funding under the following programs: • NHS – National Highway System • STP – Surface Transportation Program (includes STEP [Statewide Transportation Enhancement Program], Section 130 Railway-Highway Crossing Program, and Section 152 Hazard Elimination Program safety funds) • CMAQ – Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program • SRS – Safe Routes to Schools • Federal Lands • Scenic Byways • RTP — Recreational Trails Program.
Four popular programs in TEA-21 are STP’s STEP, SRS, CMAQ and RTP. Although another call for STEP and SRS projects isn’t anticipated until after reauthorization of TEA-21, a CMAQ call is anticipated in the Summer of 2005. Details for these programs are outlined below:
Statewide Transportation Enhancement Program (STEP)
Background: STEP is a competitive cost reimbursement program administered by TXDOT, who issues a call for project nominations. Purpose: To diversify travel modes, increase community benefits, strengthen state and local partnerships and promote citizen involvement in transportation decisions. The STEP program includes provisions pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Eligibility: Projects must demonstrate a relationship to the surface transportation system through either function or impact and go above and beyond standard transportation activities. A 20 percent local match is required. Cost overruns must be paid by the local sponsor. A letter of support from NCTCOG is required. For more information go to: http://www.dot.state.tx.us/des/step/
Safe Routes to School Program (SRS)
Background: Under TEA-21, SRS is a competitive cost reimbursement program administered by TXDOT, who issues a call for project nominations. Purpose: To enable and encourage children including those with disabilities to walk and bicycle to school.
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 74
Eligibility: Funds may be used for planning, design and construction of infrastructure related projects to improve walking, bicycling, sidewalk improvements, traffic calming, pedestrian and bicycle improvements, on-street bicycle facilities, off-street bicycle and pedestrian facilities, bicycle parking, traffic diversion near schools. Eligible non-infrastructure projects may be used for walking and bicycling activities, public awareness campaigns, traffic education and enforcement. The local match requirement varies from none to 20 percent, depending on the project type and location. For more information go to: http://www.dot.state.tx.us/trafficsafety/srs/
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ)
Background: CMAQ was established under ISTEA of 1991 and reauthorized in TEA-21. Funds are administered by NCTCOG, the Metropolitan Planning Organization for the region. Purpose: To improve air quality in non-attainment or maintenance areas. Eligibility: Transportation projects in a non-attainment area which are aimed at reducing emissions and improving air quality are eligible, including bicycle and pedestrian projects, public/ private partnerships, and transit improvements. Projects must be listed in a conforming Transportation Improvement Program. CMAQ projects require a 20 percent local match. For more information go to http://nctcog.org
Recreational Trails Program (RTP)
Background: The RTP is cost reimbursement program administered by Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. Individual grants can range from $4,000 to $100,000 (total project cost $5,000 – $125,000). Purpose: To develop and maintain recreational trails and trail related facilities for diverse non- motorized and motorized uses. Eligibility: Recreational Trails Program funds are awarded to governmental entities or not-for- profit organizations for up to 80 percent of allowable costs, and may be used for: • Construction of new recreational trails on public land, or on private land under certain conditions • Trail restoration or rehabilitation, including Americans with Disability Act upgrades • Development of trailheads or trailside facilities (signs, restrooms, parking, drinking water, horse-watering facilities and hitching posts/corrals, bike racks, benches and picnic tables, fencing or bollards) • Acquisition of trail easements or leases, or if necessary by fee simple title • Construction and materials costs including direct labor costs • Educational signing for interpretation or trail etiquette • Environmental mitigation to provide for redesign, reconstruction, non-routine maintenance or relocation to mitigate or minimize impact to the natural environment • Maintenance of existing recreational trails, but priority will be lower than new development or rehabilitation/restoration.
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 75
Recreational Trails Program funds cannot be used for: • Landscaping • Non-trail related facilities such as camping areas, fee booths, etc • Research, development or printing of educational or interpretive brochures • Condemnation of any kind of interest in property • Adding motorized uses to non-motorized trails • Research and planning • Sidewalks or trails that have only a transportation or access function • Administrative costs of the sponsor.
Allowable costs for sponsor’s match include: • Appraised value of donated land or easement • Value of volunteer labor at $6.20 per hour • Value of donated materials or contribution of materials on hand • Value of donated equipments • Reimbursable costs which are paid for by cash donations or sponsor appropriations.
For more information go to: http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/grants/trails
Railway-Highway Crossing Program
Purpose: This program funds activities for safety improvement projects to eliminate hazards at railway/highway grade crossings. Eligibility: Elimination of hazards at railway-highway crossings, crossing protection devices, upgrading existing devices, railroad crossing closures, pedestrian crossing improvements for high priority projects.
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Texas Recreation and Parks Account Program
Purpose: This program has several grants, which fund trails including Outdoor Recreation Grants and Regional Parks Grants. The purpose of the Regional Parks Grants is to create large recreation areas, regional systems of parks and conservation areas with trail linkages, and linear greenways between parks in urban areas through partnerships. Eligibility: These two grant programs are currently in the process of revision and new scoring priorities should be reviewed prior to submitting applications. A 50 percent match is required, with a maximum project amount of $1 million for the Outdoor Recreation Grants, and variable amounts for the Regional Park Grants. There are many restrictions. Deadlines for submissions are January 31 and July 31. City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 76
For more information go to: http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/grants/
Dallas County Park and Open Space Program
Purpose: This program supports the development of a countywide comprehensive trail system. Eligibility: Trails in Dallas County. For more information call (214) 653-6653 or go to http://www.dallascounty.org
Foundation Support
Certain foundations and organizations exist which assist in direct funding for trail projects, while others exist to help citizen efforts get established with small seed funds or technical and publicity assistance. Before applying for any grant, it is crucial to review The Foundation Directory and The Foundation Grants Index published by the Foundation Center to learn if a particular project fits the requirements of the foundation. These publications are issued in electronic and printed forms and may be found in libraries. Contact each foundation for clarification of their particular requirements, prior to deciding to submit a request. More information about the Foundation Center services is available by calling 202/331-1401, browse to: http://www.fdncenter.org
Bikes Belong Coalition
Bikes Belong Coalition is sponsored by members and supporters of the American Bicycle Industry, and has a mission of putting more people on bikes more often. They accept applications for grants of up to $10,000 each, and will consider successor grants for continuing projects, subject to policy guidelines. More information is located at http://www.bikesbelong.org.
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 77
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 78
9. Conclusion
Carrollton has many opportunities to create a functional and attractive pedestrian and bicycle transportation and recreation system. Each element – trails, on-street bikeways and sidewalks – are important in the citywide system. Investment in the development of this system will create new opportunities for Carrollton residents, businesses, and visitors. In the as-yet undeveloped areas of the city, development appears to be moving toward more compact walkable communities. This non-motorized plan will support and enhance the value of these future developments, many of which will have access to light rail or commuter rail service in the future.
Specific alignments should be viewed as flexible, and adjusted as need to achieve the objectives of residents, businesses and developers, while maintaining system connectivity. This plan will make it easier for land planners and developers to access information necessary to address these quality-of-life and transportation-choice opportunities. While modifications to some alignments should be anticipated and accommodated as site plans are developed, the impacts of proposed modifications should be considered in the context of the overall non- motorized system, keeping in mind the need for system connectivity for both utilitarian and recreational trips.
Implementing this plan will require a range of strategies including the creation of partnerships with DART, TxDOT, TXU, adjacent cities, and developers to assemble rights-of-way, obtain easements, or dedicate adequate space for a given trail corridor. It will be essential to pursue a variety of funding opportunities to supplement city funding.
This plan is anticipated to take about 25 years to implement, but when complete will provide over 62 miles of trails, interconnected with 51 miles of on-street bikeways, resulting in over 113 miles of accessible pathways to parks, school, transit, shopping, and other destinations. Trails will also extend the pedestrian system, providing pleasant off-street extensions of sidewalks throughout the city.
While this plan has not focused on single-use or soft-surface trails, many opportunities exist for these trails along the city’s greenbelts. There is an opportunity to connect to Irving’s equestrian
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 79
trail system along the Elm Fork of the Trinity River. An additional canoe launch on the Elm Fork of the Trinity is proposed between Indian Creek and Dudley Branch.
Ongoing implementation of these connections will enable residents and visitors to enjoy active, healthy lifestyles in high-quality environments throughout the city. As adjacent cities complete their connecting links, Carrollton residents will have access to other parts of the region as well.
When fully implemented, pedestrian and bicycle travel can become a routine part of daily life for Carrolton residents, helping enhance the quality of life for future generations.
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 80
Appendix A Data Collection
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05
Appendix A Page 1 of 4
Data Collection
Information provided digitally by the City or its consultants, included:
City of Carrollton AutoCAD files. 2004 CIP Drainage Projects, Carrollton Land Use 2004, Carrollton Parks 2004, Carrollton Transportation 2004, Carrollton Zoning 2004.
City of Carrollton Comprehensive Subdivision Ordinance. Article X, Design Standards.
City of Carrollton Comprehensive Subdivision Ordinance. Article XI, Construction and Improvements.
City of Carrollton General Design Standards. Paving Improvements. Paving Details. Miscellaneous Details. Utility Location Details. January 2004.
City of Carrollton. N.O.T.I.C.E. Neighborhoods. Map. February 2004.
City of Carrollton. Sidewalk Inventory. April 2002.
Dallas Area Rapid Transit. Northwest Corridor Final Environmental Impact Study. Appendix C, Plan and Profile Drawings. Bus Route Maps. October 2003.
J.D. Wilson Associates, et. al. City of Carrollton Station Area Plans. Adopted by Resolution 2580. June 4, 2002.
J.D. Wilson Associates, et. al. Downtown Carrollton DART Station Area Plan. Adopted by Resolution 2580. June 4, 2002.
J.D. Wilson Associates, et. al. Josey/ Belt Line Plan. Adopted by Resolution 2580. June 4, 2002.
J.D. Wilson Associates, et. al. North Carrollton DART Station Area Plan. Adopted by Resolution 2580. June 4, 2002.
J.D. Wilson Associates, et. al. Old Downtown Carrollton Plan. Adopted by Resolution 2580. June 4, 2002.
J.D. Wilson Associates, et. al. Planned Development 36 Study. Adopted by Resolution 2580. June 4, 2002.
J.D. Wilson Associates, et. al. City of Carrollton Renaissance Initiative. Adopted by Resolution 2580. June 4, 2002.
Newman, Jackson, Bieberstein, Inc. (NJB, Inc.). TOD-C2U Sketch. December 2004.
Townscape, Inc.; NJB, Inc.; and Parsons Transportation Group. Design Standards for Downtown Carrollton Streetscape Design. September 7, 2004.
Townscape, Inc.; NJB, Inc.; and Parsons Transportation Group. Design Standards for Trinity Mills Streetscape Design. September 7, 2004.
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05
Appendix A Page 2 of 4 Data collection, for which only hard copies were provided by the City of Carrollton, included:
City of Carrollton. 5-Year Work Plan Project Schedule. January 13, 2005.
City of Carrollton. 5-Year Work Plan (Park) Facilities. Map. February 2005.
City of Carrollton. 5-Year Work Plan Drainage Projects. Map. February 2005.
City of Carrollton. 5-Year Work Plan (Park) Facilities. Map. February 2005.
City of Carrollton. 5-Year Work Plan Street Projects. Map. February 2005.
City of Carrollton. 5-Year Work Plan. Water & Wastewater Facilities. Map. February 2005.
City of Carrollton. 24 Hour Traffic Counts. June 25, 2004.
City of Carrollton. 2004 Bond Referendum Drainage Project Recommendations. Map. October 2003.
City of Carrollton. A Lifetime of Leisure: Lifetime of Leisure Carrollton Parks Master Plan. Carter & Burgess. March 2004.
City of Carrollton. Citywide Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan Community Meeting 11/16/04. Citizen Comments.
City of Carrollton. Future Land Use map. Amended May 4, 2004.
City of Carrollton. Master Thoroughfare Plan Listing. January 16, 2001.
City of Carrollton. Transportation Plan. Map. Adopted February 18, 2003.
Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART). Northwest Corridor Final Environmental Impact Study (FEIS). October 2003.
DART. Northwest Corridor FEIS. Appendix C, Plan and Profile Drawings. October 2003.
Jones & Boyd, Inc. Moore Farm Subdivision Plans: Phase I. Phase 2. Phase 3. Phase 4B.
Mapsco. Dallas. 1952.
Nathan D. Maier Consulting Engineers, Inc. Furneaux Creek Segment Two Final Plans. Channel Restoration Improvements. 2003.
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05
Appendix A Page 3 of 4 The following information was collected from the internet: http://www.cityofcarrollton.com/development/community/notice.shtml. January 10, 2005. http://www.cityofcarrollton.com/development/econdevel/qualityoflife.shtml. April 25, 2005. http://www.cityofcarrollton.com/development/econdevel/demographics.shtml. Carrollton City Profile. April 5, 2005. http://www.cityofcarrollton.com/development/construction.asp. January 10, 2005. http://www.cityofcarrollton.com/development/planning/subdivision/checklist.shtml http://www.cityofcarrollton.com/development/publicworks/sidewalk repair policy 2003.shtml. January 22, 2005. http://www.cityofcarrollton.com/development/Master_Maps.shtml. January 22, 2005. http://www.keyhole.com. September 2002 aerial imagery at 2-foot resolution for Carrollton, Texas. http://census.nctcog.org/report.asp. Census 2000. City of Carrollton. Total Population by Race and Hispanic Origin. June 17, 2005. http://census.nctcog.org/sf3/. Census 2000 Profile of Selected Economic Characteristics for Carrollton, Texas. Census 2000 Profile of General Demographic Characteristics for Carrollton, Texas. Census 2000 Profile of Selected Social Characteristics for Carrollton, Texas. June 17, 2005. http://www.nctcog.org. Rail Station Access: Bicycle and Pedestrian Needs Assessment. February 2003. http://www.nctcog.org./ris/demographics/estimates.asp. Major Employers in Carrollton. June 2, 2004. http://www.nctcog.org. BikeWeb Maps for the cities of Lewisville, Coppell and Carrollton. June 2, 2004. http://www/nctcog.org/ris/forecast/quest. Demographic Forecast Data Query. Population, Households, Employment. January 8, 2005. http://www/nctcog.org. Census 2000. Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: General Demographic Characteristics (SF-3). Economic Characteristics (SF-3). Housing Characteristics (SF-3), Social Characteristics (SF-3). http://www.nctcog.org/development/econodevel/transportation/FAQ’s.shtml. September 1, 2004.
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05
Appendix A Page 4 of 4 Adjacent cities and counties data collection by Bowman-Melton Associates:
City of Addison. Addison! Trail Map and Parks Map. (with notations).
City of Addison. Arapahoe Road Multi-Use Path Concept. By HNTB Corp.
City of Coppell. Trail System Master Plan by NJB, Inc. February 1996.
City of Dallas. A Renaissance Plan for Dallas Parks and Recreation in the 21st Century. By Carter & Burgess, et al. April 2002.
City of Farmers Branch. http://www.ci.farmers-branch.tx.us/ParksRec/Walkingtrails.html. July 2, 2004.
City of Irving. Future Land Use Map. March 21, 2002.
City of Irving. Trinity River Parks & Greenbelt Master Plan. By Carter & Burgess. November 1995.
City of Lewisville. Parks & Open Space Master Plan. By Bunkin Sims Stoffels, Inc. November 1998.
City of Plano. Land Use Plan. Map. Updated November 12, 2001.
City of Plano. Plano, Texas Trail System Map. October 2002.
City of Plano. Bicycle Transportation Plan. Updated November 12, 2001.
City of The Colony. Future Lane Use. Map. (no date)
City of The Colony. The City of The Colony Trail Master Plan. Dunkin Sims Stoffels, Inc. April 2004.
Dallas County. Dallas County Trail Plan: Trails for the Twenty-First Century. By Halff Associates, Inc. and Bowman-Melton Associates, Inc. March 1997.
Non-Motorized Transportation Guidance Sources
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Guide for the Planning, Design and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities. July 2004.
AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 1999.
MUTCD 2000. Traffic Controls for Bicycle Facilities. December 2000.
North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG). Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Planning and Design Guidelines. December 1995.
NCTCOG. Mobility 2025: The Metropolitan Transportation Plan, 2004 Update.
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05
Appendix B On-Street Bicycle Level of Service (BLOS) Evaluation Method
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05
Appendix B Page 1 of 4
ON-STREET BICYCLE LEVEL OF SERVICE (BLOS) EVALUATION METHOD
The primary BLOS factors include velocity and volume of motorized traffic and the amount of space available for the bicyclist to operate. In short, streets with narrow lanes and high volumes of fast moving traffic are not bicycle friendly, while streets with wide outside lanes, light traffic volumes and slower traffic speeds are considered to be bicycle friendly. These primary factors are discussed below as velocity, volume, and potential curb lane width.
PRIMARY STRESS LEVEL (SL) FACTORS
Primary factors used in considering a street suitable for signing as a bike route:
• Determine curb lane traffic velocity stress level (Vel SL) by using the design speed from the City’s thoroughfare plan (or posted speed limit)
• Calculate traffic volume stress level (Vol SL) for Peak Vehicles per Hour in the curb lane (PV/HCL) using most current traffic counts available. Where traffic counts were not available, they were estimated.
• Identify the curb lane width (W SL) from the city thoroughfare plan.
The method used for calculating the BLOS described in NCTCOG’s 1995 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Planning and Design Guidelines uses the following formula:
PRIMARY STRESS LEVEL (PSL) = (Vel SL + Vol SL +W SL) / 3
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 Appendix B Page 2 of 4
Table 1. Primary Stress Level (SL) Factors (Columns 1-3)
Column 1: Posted Column 2: Peak Vehicles Column 3: Curb Lane Velocity Vehicle Speed Volume per Hour in Width Width Stress Level Limit Stress Level the Curb Lane Stress (Vel SL) in Miles Per (Vol SL) (PV/HCL) Level Feet Hour (W SL)
1 1-25 1 1-50 1 15'
2 26-34 2 51-200 2 14'
3 35-39 3 201-325 3 13'
4 40-44 4 326-449 4 12'
5 45+ 5 450+ 5 11'
Table 2. BICYCLE LEVEL OF SERVICE (BLOS) INDEX (Reference the Stress Level (SL) for each road segment to the table below.)
SL BLOS Traffic Characteristics
1.0-1.49 A Free traffic flow with bicyclists virtually unaffected by the presence of other types of vehicles in traffic.
1.50-2.49 B Stable flow with a high degree of freedom for bicycle operation but with some influence from other vehicles. May have some on-street parking.
2.50-3.49 C Restricted flow which remains stable but with significant interaction between bicyclists and motorists. May have sporadic on-street parking and a moderate level of mid-block commercial driveways.
3.50-4.49 D High speed, high density flow in which freedom to maneuver is severely restricted and congestion is noticeable, although flow is stable. Interaction at intersections is unfavorable. Trucks, street parking and commercial driveways may be common.
4.50+ F High speed flow with traffic volume at capacity or exceeding capacity with multiple conflicts at intersections. There may be frequent trucks, on-street parking and commercial driveways.
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 Appendix B Page 3 of 4
SECONDARY STRESS LEVEL (SL) FACTORS
Secondary Stress Level Factors were not evaluated as part of this master planning process. These should be incorporated as circumstances warrant prior to bike route implementation. If applicable, add these Secondary Stress Factors (Tables 3, 4 and 5) to the Primary Stress Level total determined above to establish the final SL for each given road segment. Reference this resulting SL number to the BLOS Index (Table 2).
Table 3.
FREQUENCY OF COMMERCIAL DRIVEWAYS (esp. those considered “common” e.g. shopping centers)
Commercial Driveways Per Mile Add Stress Level Factor
30-39 +0.1
40-49 +0.2
50+ +0.4
Table 4. LEVELS OF TRUCK / BUS TRAFFIC (as percentage of overall traffic)
Truck / Bus Traffic Add Stress Level Factor
10%-12% +0.1
12%-15% +0.2
15%+ +0.4
Table 5. ON-STREET PARKING (frequency of turnover - if present)
Parking Turnover Add Stress Level Factor
10-14 per hour +0.1
15-19 per hour +0.2
20+ per hour +0.4
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 Appendix B
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
4 of 4
Appendix C Community Meeting Citizen Comments
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05
Community Meeting Citizens Comments Appendix C November 16, 2004 Page 1 of 4
# Location Citizen Comment BMA Response 1 The area on either 1. Environmental area Moved the proposed trail sides of the Branch 2. Swamp connection between the planned Hollow Road between trail and the sidewalk to the west Old Denton Rd and side of Silver Maple Dr. Rolling Oaks 2 The area either side of Check aerial for concrete culvert Trail design will need to address the planned trail near existing culvert in greenbelt Dudley Branch Creek south of Silver Maple Dr. 3 In Nob Hill Greenbelt 1. Continue trail to rail station Trail already planned along (undeveloped), the area 2. Low impact trails Furneaux Creek to proposed rail to the north of the trail to Trinity Mills Rd. programmed trail 4 In Nob Hill Greenbelt People drive too fast Explore Traffic Calming options. (undeveloped), the area to the southeast of the programmed trail 5 Along Trinity Mills Rd Bike path along SH190 easement or Can use the east-west trail along right of way Furneaux Creek which is less than half a mile north of Trinity Mills or trail south of Trinity Mills Rd along utility easement. 6 The programmed trail in Use at least 10-12 ft trail BMA recommends a minimum Nob Hill Greenbelt 6, 10 ft trail; 12 ft in areas of heavy north of Frankford Rd use. and west of Josey Ln 7 In TC Rice Jr. Athletic 1. Park area Could be developed as a park. Complex (undeveloped) 2. Add canoe input Added a potential Canoe Launch to Trinity River that flows through the TC Rice Complex. 8 The area on the Need connection No feasible trail connection due southwest side of the to the presence of railroad and a railroad, west of Marsh lake immediately to the east. Lane at Hebron Sidewalk improvement to create Parkway contiguous connection with existing sidewalks on both sides of railroad ROW is recommended. 9 The Furneaux Creek Can cross at grade, traffic not heavy BMA did a site review of the trail crossing at intersection and determined that Furneaux Creek Rd in an at-grade crossing is Nob Hill Greenbelt 6 adequate. 10 The trail crossing at Underpass required Grade separated crossing is Josey Lane near Nob difficult, since there exists a Hill Greenbelt 2 storm water outfall adjacent to a bench abutting Furneaux Creek which is currently undercut. Short term enhanced at-grade crossing is recommended. Long term include an underpass when bridge is reconstructed.
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 Community Meeting Citizens Comments Appendix C November 16, 2004 Page 2 of 4
# Location Citizen Comment BMA Response 11 Area to the north of 1. Area north of Running Duke- Dirt Area could be developed as a Keller Springs Rd, west Ramps BMX biking area. of Marsh Ln 2. Area south of running Duke- Open Space 12 Planned trail connecting Great idea Since this previously planned Country Place and trail runs through private Columbian Country property, it has been determined Club, along Hutton to be not feasible. The alignment Branch Creek for the planned trail has been moved to the north-south TXU easement east of Marsh Lane and the DART-owned Cottonbelt RR. 13 Area in Josey Ranch Would like to see the planned and Presence of an existing trail sports complex proposed trails connected along the Hutton Branch Creek serves as a trail connection. Map symbology changed to make the connection clear. 14 Along Marsh Ln. in Sidewalk Other city area. Plano, south of Beltline Rd 15 The intersection of Dangerous crossing Need sidewalk connections to Webb Chapel Rd and Oakbrook Pkwy. Consider Gateway Ave enhanced intersection crossing. Possibly in Farmer's Branch. 16 The intersection of Dangerous crossing Consider enhanced intersection Josey Ln. and Crosby crossing. Rd 17 AW Perry Museum Connect to DART light rail Already proposed sidewalks jogging trail along Perry to connect to the proposed or planned trail connections to the DART rail station. 18 Dimension Tract Develop as destination for trails 19 Area along Trinity River Great natural area Potential nature trails have been from Sandy Lake Rd proposed already. north to Carrollton city limit. 20 Area near McInnish I recommend bicycle access to There are other proposed non Park near Sandy Lake McInnish Park via Broadway St and motorized transportation links Rd Sandy Lake Rd with convenient access nearby. Trails are proposed along the DART rail corridor east of Broadway, and also along Sandy Lake Road.
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 Community Meeting Citizens Comments Appendix C November 16, 2004 Page 3 of 4
# Location Citizen Comment BMA Response 21 Planned trail N of This portion of the 'Planned' trail The planned trail has been Rosemeade Recreation (Behind Muirfield Dr.) is not suitable for moved from the west side to the Center a trail. As the creek comes to Muirfield east side of the creek. Dr., the drainage channel narrows and does not easily provide space that could handle a trail. Additionally, the existing concrete skirts do not provide an ADA accessible route. Rainwater often causes 'floodwaters' to rise near the top of the culverts at Rosemeade Pkwy.
Written Comments Roads that are marked better for the bicycle system. How is that determined? Do all bicycle systems have painted lanes on public roads? Repair and widen old sidewalks, add missing links of sidewalks, lots of restored and enhanced natural areas, public and private money. Awesome trail plan! It would be fantastic to bike through Carrollton safely. Would like trails wide enough for bikers, walkers and joggers. Love natural surroundings - I've seen trees marked with descriptions, age etc that were ecologically safe and interesting. I am interested in helping with the planning and implementation of the trail system. I understand the need for nature trails and think there are many opportunities for these trails. I also think there is a need for the larger cement trails to connect to transportation, schools and businesses. these trails also provide a better opportunity for walkers and joggers. I do not want the voices of those wanting larger trails to be drowned out by those wanting nature trails. The two types of trails can co-exist. I am president of Carrollton Runner's Club and may be able to involve other members if that would be helpful. I am not sure if there is anywhere I can help but I am willing to help where I can be useful. Thanks for having this meeting, I am encouraged by what was presented. Good preliminary work. This is needed to improve our quality of life. 1) I would like to see as wide trails as possible to allow multiple use, that connect through greenbelts to provide transportation and recreation exercise. The Hillcrest/ Valley View to White Rock Lake at 25 miles and trails in Plano are excellent examples. 2) Utilize as many existing infrastructure grade crossing as possible to connect trails - culverts, under bridges are unique and provide a change of pace. 3) Build more trails- a lot on the maps are planned, very few are funded.
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 Appendix C Page 4
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05 Bowman-Melton Associates, Inc.
Appendix D Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan: Prioritization Criteria
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05
Appendix D Page 1 of 1
Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan Prioritization Criteria Yes (Y) Yes Score Prioritization Scoring / No(N) Value Trails maximum 100 - Cost maximum 30 - "Public" ownership. (Uses existing parkland; uses other public right of way [utility easement, DART ROW, - roadway ROW). Select one only: 100% 20 - 75-99% 15 - 50-74% 10 - 25-49% 5- Can be incorporated into other plans. Select one only: - Current or planned CIP Project. 5- Future private sector development. 7- Outside the 100-year flood zone. 3- Improved Mobility maximum 40 -
Currently meets regional goals- serves High Bicycle Needs Index (BNI) and/or Pedesrian Needs Index (PNI) 5- areas (top 25%); or Identified by NCTCOG as a Pedestrian Transportation District (PTD) or Bicycle TD (BTD). Future Land Use Plan for corridor is Mixed Use, High Density Residential (MultiFamily) or High Density 5- Employment (Medium-High Office/Commercial). Is included in currently adopted park plan. 5- Extends existing or programmed trail. 5- Links to other jurisdictions. 2- Provides access to future rail transit station from up to 1 mile. 7 - Provides access to school from up to 1/2 mile (ES, MS) or 1 mile (HS+). 5 - Provides access to commercial area up to 1/2 mile. 3- Provides access to bus route up to 1/2 mile. 3- Quality of Life - Environmental maximum 30 - Provides direct access to transit, educational, receational , commercial, civic, or cultural destination. 5 - High level of local stakeholder interest/support. 10 - Intrinsic scenic value, opportunities to connect to nature trails. 5 - Potential to serve as riparian corridor edge. 4- Frequency of connections with other non-motorized transportation facilities (trails, sidewalks, bike routes). - Select one only: 1/8 mile 6- 1/4 mile 4- 1/2 mile 3-
Bike Routes maximum 100 - Cost maximum 45 - Extent of modification required. Select one only: - Route is currently bike friendly. 45 - Route can be provided with low cost improvements such as restriping. 30 - Route needs minor, spot improvements. 25 - Route needs spot improvements at jogs along arterials. 10 - Route can be provided with overall roadway reconstruction. 5 -
Improved Mobility maximum 50 - Currently meets regional goals- serves High BNI areas (top 25%); or Identified by NCTCOG as a BTD. 5 - Future Land Use Plan for corridor is Mixed Use, High Density Residential (MultiFamily) or High Density 5- Employment (Medium-High Office/Commercial). Provides access to future rail transit station from up to 2 miles. 7 - Provides access to school from up to 1/2 mile (ES, MS) or 1 mile (HS+). 5 - Provides access to commercial area up to 1/2 mile. 3- Provides access to bus route up to 1/2 mile. 5- Route can be incorporated into current or planned CIP Project. 15 - Provides access to existing or programmed trail. 5-
Quality of Life - Environmental maximum 5- Provides direct access to transit, educational, receational , commercial, civic, or cultural destination. 5 -
______City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan - Preliminary Final 06/24/05
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05
Appendix E Summary of Master Plan Level Costs by Priority for Recommended Facilities
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05
Summary of Master Plan Level Costs by Priority for Recommended Facilities Appendix E Page 1 of 1
Facility Existing Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Total Trails 2.8 12.5 26.0 20.9 62.2 On-Street - 42.8 7.7 0.5 51.0 Miles Total 2.8 55.3 33.7 21.4 113.2
Trails - $ 16,026 $ 29,999 $ 24,122 $ 70,147 On-Street - $ 303 $ 210 $ 177 $ 691 1,000
Dollars Total - $ 16,329 $ 30,209 $ 24,299 $ 70,838 Master Plan Cost Estimates Improve- Unit of Unit Cost/ ment Faciliy type Details Unit Cost/ Mile Source Notes measure linear feet Type TRAIL NCTCOG: Mobility 2025 - Priority 1 concrete trail (P1) 12' wide mile $1,280,000 $242 along public right of way 2004 Update
Priority 2 concrete trail extrapolated from Mobility along public right of way; cost reduced for trail 10' wide mile $1,155,000 $219 and 3 (P2-4) 2025-2004 update tread, not bridges, retaining walls, etc. ON-STREET BIKE bike route signage NCTCOG: Mobility 2025 - 1 10 mile $1,000 $0.19 signs only for R2U, C2U etc 2004 Update on-street pave-ment mark-ings - selected NCTCOG: Mobility 2025 - 2 8 mile $8,000 $1.52 do not use on R2U streets C2U, C4U and 2004 Update higher restriping for NCTCOG: Mobility 2025 - C4U >1T1; restripe multilane streets so 3 selected C4U and mile $10,000 $1.89 2004 Update outside lane is 14-15' as needed higher streets arterial jog previous TxDOT Major add 2' additional each direction, tl 4' for 14' 4 improvement with 1 feet $20.00 Investment Study wide outside lane other widening arterial jog previous TxDOT Major add 2' additional each direction, tl 4' for 14' 5 improvement - stand 1 feet $40.00 Investment Study wide outside lane alone arterial jog previous TxDOT Major add 3' additional each direction, tl 6' for 15' 6 improvement with 1 feet $30.00 Investment Study wide outside lane other widening arterial jog previous TxDOT Major add 3' additional each direction, tl 6' for 15' 7 improvement - stand 1 feet $60.00 Investment Study wide outside lane alone
______City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan - Preliminary Final 06/24/05
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05
Appendix F Recommended Trail Segment Evaluations
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05
Recommended Trail Segment Evaluations Appendix F Page 1 of 7
Improved Cost Segment Cost QoL-Env Overall Length Cost Segment Status E or N limit W or S limit Mobility P CIP Intersection Issues Notes /Linear Id# Score Score Score (Linear Ft) Key Cost Score Ft. Southward along N-S TXU Intersection Issue # 4. Proposed T79 Keller Springs is BLOS D-F here. T1 Planned Keller Springs Rd easement, to Squireswood 28 13 8 49 2 3,750 along N-S TXU easement at Keller Overpass or signalized at-grade 2 218.75 820,313 Banbury intersection Springs Rd crossing.
Intersection Issue #4: Midblock T2 Planned Keller Springs Rd N ROW of Cottonbelt RR 28 13 8 49 2 5,642 crossing of Keller Springs. Trail 2 218.75 1,234,188 crossing road. Needs an overpass.
E of drainage way N along W Intersection Issue #19. Midblock Northside of Cottonbelt RR T3 Planned side of Ted Polk MS to Josey 20 15 5 40 2 5,990 crossing of Kelly N side of Cottonbelt 2 218.75 1,310,313 ROW at Trail 2 westward Ranch Greenbelt RR ROW
Intersection Issue # 21.Josey Lane E of drainage easement N of trail crossing. Josey Ln crossing Hutton Branch tributary in E of Josey Ln N of Hutton Drainage T4 Planned 25 16 18 59 2 3,440 options- signalized at-grade (can be 2 218.75 752,500 Josey Ranch Greenbelt, W of Branch CIP D, I, J user activated) or overpass. Josey Ln Kelly Blvd creek culvert not usable.
SE BNSF RR and Creek in Drainage T5 Planned Mill Valley Greenbelt at Trail 4, E of Josey Ln 25 21 20 66 1 2,349 1 242.42 569,445 CIP F & G Carmel Along E side of the creek, W of Josey Ln possible Trestle underpass from Jimmy Porter Across Josey Ln to existing trail Drainage Intersection Issue # 21 Josey Lane T6 Planned Trail 4, E of Josey Ln 20 26 17 63 1 1,456 Park to Josey Ranch Sports 1 242.42 352,964 in Josey Ranch Greenbelt CIP D, I, J trail crossing. See above T4. Complex and existing trail. Existing bridge across creek in Jimmy Porter Park.
T7 Existing T6 in Josey Ranch Greenbelt T109 in Josey Ranch Greenbelt 2,058 Do not score 0 0 -
W terminus of existing trail in Intersection Issue # 34. Major Trail T8 Planned UPRR Railroad/ DART 25 33 28 86 1 4,909 Downtown Major Plaza area 1 242.42 1,190,040 Josey Ranch Greenbelt Junction. Intersection Issue # 34. Major Trail T9 Planned UPRR Railroad/ DART Cottonbelt RR, W of Hutton Rd 0 28 21 49 2 2,923 Major Plaza area 2 218.75 639,406 Junction. Intersection Issue #8.Proposed trail would need to cross railroad at Luna Rd to cross at-grade at Beltline Rd Cottonbelt RR, W of Hutton T10 Planned Dimension Tract at Trail 11 0 15 8 23 3 5,397 within the intersection, or possibly 3 218.75 1,180,594 Rd overpass. Luna Rd is BLOS D-F here. At-grade or overpass crossing required. Junction of Trails 10 and 12, N Junction of trail T92 and T94, Trail can pass under Belt Line and T11 Planned of Hutton Branch in Dimension 20 11 24 55 2 2,395 2 218.75 523,906 N of CBRR Cottonbelt RR bridge/ trestle Tract Junction of trails T11, T92 and T12 Planned T14, N of Sandy Lake Rd 18 11 20 49 2 7,037 2 218.75 1,539,344 T94
T13 Proposed Rabbit Run Junction of trails T29 and T67 7 16 13 36 3 2,495 3 218.75 545,781
N side of Furneaux Creek at N property line of McInnish Park T14 Planned 0 15 14 29 3 5,436 3 218.75 1,189,125 Trinity River 99 yr lease
W/WW & KCS RR, W of Furneaux Trail 16, SE of Branch Hollow in Intersection Issue#16 to cross T15 Planned 10 8 20 38 3 4,965 Drainage 3 218.75 1,086,094 Creek Greenbelt #9 Hebron Pwy at Arbor Creek Rd FB
T16 Planned High Country Greenbelt 9 5 8 20 33 3 2,618 Trail to pass under BNSF RR at creek 3 218.75 572,688
Junction of Trails 15 and 16 in Furneaux Intersection Issue #20. Trail crossing Peters Colony crossing to be at- T17 Planned Peters Colony 25 3 20 48 2 5,808 2 218.75 1,270,500 Greenbelt 9 WW FB at Rosemeade grade
______City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan - Preliminary Final 06/24/05 Recommended Trail Segment Evaluations Appendix F Page 2 of 7
Improved Cost Segment Cost QoL-Env Overall Length Cost Segment Status E or N limit W or S limit Mobility P CIP Intersection Issues Notes /Linear Id# Score Score Score (Linear Ft) Key Cost Score Ft.
Intersection Issue #12. Limited Intersection Issue #23. Peters Furneaux underpass opportunities. Will need Colony crossing to be at-grade. T18 Planned Peters Colony Josey Ln at Furneaux Creek 25 21 20 66 1 2,721 WW S3 & 1 242.42 659,625 further evaluation. Josey Ln is BLOS Prototype at-grade crossing at this Drainage D here. location.
Furneaux WW S2 , McCoy to Junction of Trails 24 and 25 in T19 Planned Josey Ln at Greenbelt 6 25 26 17 68 1 3,701 Frankford Trail bench exists at Frankford 1 242.42 897,196 Greenbelt 3 & Drainage FA
W of BNSF RR, at Greenbelt T20 Existing Furneaux Rd 1,205 Do not score 0 0 - 4a
Furneaux Creek FF N of Frankford Rd at existing Existing trail underpass at T21 Planned Furneaux Rd 25 21 20 66 1 1,253 (Trib 6E1) 1 242.42 303,752 trail T22 Frankford. Drainage project
T22 Existing N of Frankford Rd Scott Mill Rd 2,436 Do not score 0 0 - Existing Trail 24 near Scott Mill T23 Planned W of BNSF RR 20 18 18 56 2 3,041 2 218.75 665,219 Rd
Intersection Issue#13. Josey Lane at- grade crossing needs serious T24 Existing Scott Mill Rd T24.1 at Josey 0 1,923 Do not score 0 - attention. Priority at-grade crossing enhancement needed for existing trail.
Junction of Trails 19 and 25, S T24.1 Planned T24 at Josey 25 21 18 64 1 1,583 1 242.42 383,751 of Frankford Rd
Intersection Issue #24. McCoy is BLOS C at this location. Develop Furneaux prototype underpass crossing. Poor at WW S2 , T25 Programmed Junction of Trails 19 and 24 E of McCoy Rd 25 13 27 65 1 4,270 grade crossing sitelines. Trail to cross 1 242.42 1,035,133 McCoy to under McCoy bridge. Pipe runs N-S Frankford across Furneaux Creek approximately 25' W of McCoy Rd.
Intersection Issue #1, can be an underpass at Old Denton Rd . At Intersection Issue #24, McCoy is Furneaux E of McCoy Rd, S of BLOS C at this location. Develop N of Furneaux Creek, E of Old WW, S1 T26 Planned Furneaux Creek, crossing to 25 21 17 63 1 2,571 prototype underpass crossing. Poor at 1 242.42 623,262 Denton Rd Dickerson N side of creek grade crossing sitelines. Trail to cross to McCoy under McCoy bridge. Pipe runs N-S across Furneaux Creek approximately 25' W of McCoy Rd.
______City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan - Preliminary Final 06/24/05 Recommended Trail Segment Evaluations Appendix F Page 3 of 7
Improved Cost Segment Cost QoL-Env Overall Length Cost Segment Status E or N limit W or S limit Mobility P CIP Intersection Issues Notes /Linear Id# Score Score Score (Linear Ft) Key Cost Score Ft.
Intersection Issue #1. Road Furneaux intersection is BLOS D-F. Road is to Planned T27 spur up to B87 N of Furneaux Creek, W of WW, S1 T27 Planned E of Dickerson Pkwy 25 28 17 70 1 3,514 be widened to 8 lanes. Maintain (Cambridge) west Old Denton Rd 1 242.42 851,864 Old Denton Rd Dickerson underpass for trail when crossing. to McCoy reconstructed.
UPRR/ DART at T45, S of E of Trinity River at junction of W/WW T28 Planned 25 28 9 62 1 2,663 1 242.42 645,564 Furneaux Creek Trails 14 and 42 CIP
Intersection Issue # 14. Planned trail Hebron Pkwy along Dudley T29 Planned S of Rosemeade Pkwy 27 5 18 50 2 5,991 will need signalized crossing. 2 218.75 1,310,531 Branch Creek Rosemeade Pkwy is BLOS C here.
Intersection Issues #14 and # 29 Intersection Issue #14: Planned trail Dudley will need signalized crossing. Branch Rosemeade Pkwy is BLOS C here ; Rosemeade Recreation WW2 Intersection Issue #29: If at grade Timber Creek Greenbelt W of T30 Planned Center S of Rosemeade Pkwy 25 26 28 79 1 7,039 (around should be signalized at Raleigh, shouldRosemeade is BLOS C here 1 242.42 1,706,394 Rosemeade Pkwy along Dudley Branch Rosemea also have enhanced pedestrian de Rec crossing with median refuge; possibly Center) can be underpass of Old Denton. Old Denton Rd is BLOS D-F at this location.
Intersection Issue #29. If at grade should be signalized at Raleigh, should Timber Creek Greenbelt E of Indian Creek Golf course at T31 Planned 20 21 18 59 2 2,415 also have enhanced pedestrian Old Denton is BLOS D-F 2 218.75 528,281 Rosemeade Pkwy junction of Trails 37 and 38 crossing with median refuge; possibly can be underpass of Old Denton.
T32 Planned N city limit, W of Indian Creek Polser Rd 20 8 9 37 3 4,064 3 218.75 889,000
T33 Planned Polser Rd Branch Hollow Rd 23 13 13 49 2 4,624 2 218.75 1,011,500 T34 Existing Branch Hollow Pawnee Trail 0 0 0 0 1,199 Do not score 0 - Eisenhower St at Summerlake T35 Planned Pawnee Trail 23 10 11 44 2 714 2 218.75 156,188 Trail W of Eisenhower at T36 Existing Eisenhower at Summer Hill 0 0 0 0 2,112 Do not score 0 - Summerlake Trail Junctions of Trails 38 and 31 at T37 Planned Eisenhower at Summer Hill 23 10 11 44 2 1,800 2 218.75 393,750 Indian Creek Golf course
Junctions of Trails 37 and 31 T38 Planned UPRR/ DART 20 25 14 59 2 4,726 2 218.75 1,033,813 at Indian Creek Golf course
S of Hebron Pkwy, E of Trinity T39 Planned Indian Creek at Trinity River 20 15 14 49 2 7,321 2 218.75 1,601,469 River
T40 Planned Indian Creek at Trinity River Trail 38 at Dudley Branch 20 15 14 49 2 4,167 2 218.75 911,531
UPRR/ DART at Junction of T28 at Furneaux Creek junction T42 Planned 0 22 0 22 3 9,918 Requires Furneaux Creek Bridge 3 218.75 2,169,563 Trails 38, 43 and 44 of Trinity River
Intersection Issue #18.Grade Junction of Trails 38, 42 and Junction of Trail 45 at Trinity T44 Proposed 25 18 5 48 2 6,955 DART separation would be needed. 2 218.75 1,521,406 43 Mills DART Station Frankford is BLOS D at this location.
______City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan - Preliminary Final 06/24/05 Recommended Trail Segment Evaluations Appendix F Page 4 of 7
Improved Cost Segment Cost QoL-Env Overall Length Cost Segment Status E or N limit W or S limit Mobility P CIP Intersection Issues Notes /Linear Id# Score Score Score (Linear Ft) Key Cost Score Ft.
DART & Junction of Trail 44, N of Dickerson T45 Proposed Trinity Mills DART Station, Jackson Rd 25 23 19 67 1 3,411 1 242.42 826,895 overpass along E UPRR ROW 2006
Jackson Rd E of RR ROW to Intersection Issue #34. At grade Hutton Branch at junction of T46 Proposed Northside, then below 28 23 19 70 1 7,783 DART crossing. This should be a major plaza 1 242.42 1,886,755 Trails 8 and 9 elevated rail area for the downtown trails.
Intersection Issue #22. At grade RR crossings for at grade trail. An elevated trail to the Downtown DART Crosby may cross trail and DART Hutton Branch, under elevated T47 Proposed Crosby 28 23 21 72 1 3,768 DART station is proposed here. Implement at-grade - will need to be 1 242.42 913,439 rail with overall station area considered. improvements, see recommendation illustration for DART access
Crosby, beneath elevated rail T48 Proposed S city limit at UPRR 28 25 8 61 1 3,536 DART 1 242.42 857,197 or W side of RR ROW
Intersection Issue #25. Kelly is BLOS D, N of TXU easement, BLOS C, S of easement. Cross at Intersection Issue #9. Proposed trail N side of Heads Lane at Kelly, crossing road at Marsh Lane. At- Tarpley Rd, along TXU Kelly Blvd at Mary Heads Carter enhance crossing w bike crossing T49 Proposed 23 3 11 37 3 6,423 grade crossing would require a 3 218.75 1,405,031 easement Park warning on Kelly approaches, signalized crossing. Intersection Issue crosswalk and consider user #25 at Kelly. See adjacent notes. activated signalized crossing. Intersection Issue #35 at-grade crossing of Willowgate.
Kelly Blvd at Mary Heads Kelly Bd T50 Proposed Carter Park along TXU BNSF RR 28 3 8 39 3 2,200 Intersection Issue #25 at Kelly. See note at T49 above. 3 218.75 481,250 CIP easement T51 Proposed Woodcreek E of BNSF Trail 50 at TXU easement 3 0 9 12 3 1,379 3 218.75 301,656
Junctions of Trails 50 and 51 BNSF RR trestle in Ward T52 Proposed at BNSF and TXU easement 3 16 9 28 3 1,951 3 218.75 426,781 Steenson Park at Trail 53 along E side RR ROW
Drainage T53 Proposed east of Jamestown Ln Carmel 25 16 18 59 2 2,126 2 218.75 465,063 F& G T54 Proposed Greenwood St Jamestown Ln 0 16 0 16 3 986 3 218.75 215,688
Josey Lane Intersection issue #10. Trail crossing street. TXU easement McCoy near City Hall has substation structure Jamestown Ln at junction of McCoy Rd at Clifford E. Hall Rd. & on north side. At-grade crossing would T55 Proposed 28 16 8 52 2 4,601 McCoy Rd crossing at-grade. 2 218.75 1,006,469 Trail 53 along TXU easement Park Denton need to cross at Jamestown and Rd CIP utilize sidewalk area to move north back to utility easement west of Josey Ln.
McCoy Intersection Issue #31.Combine with McCoy Rd at Clifford E. Hall Rd. & future widening of Old Denton Road. T56 Proposed W of Old Denton Rd 28 16 11 55 2 3,671 2 218.75 803,031 Park Denton Old Denton is currently BLOS D-F at Rd CIP this location.
______City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan - Preliminary Final 06/24/05 Recommended Trail Segment Evaluations Appendix F Page 5 of 7
Improved Cost Segment Cost QoL-Env Overall Length Cost Segment Status E or N limit W or S limit Mobility P CIP Intersection Issues Notes /Linear Id# Score Score Score (Linear Ft) Key Cost Score Ft. W of Old Denton Rd along Old Trail 45, S of Trinity Mills DART T57 Proposed TXU easement through Ken 28 23 15 66 1 4,904 Denton 1 242.42 1,188,828 Station Good Park Rd. Hebron High School S of T58 Proposed BNSF RR at T105 10 15 18 43 2 1,427 2 218.75 312,156 Plano Rd
N city limit along Dozier Rd ROW to Hebron Pwy, then Intersection Issue# 16. Existing Trail crosses Plano Pkwy at T59 Proposed along undeveloped land to T15 S of KCS RR 10 15 5 30 3 4,645 maintenance underpass of KCS RR 3 218.75 1,016,094 Dozier. KCS RR "service underpass" could be used. behind subdivision
FM 541/ Charles St, along T60 Existing Valley Glenn Court 0 0 0 0 3,853 Do not score 0 - both sides of creek
N city limit, W of Plano Pkwy Plano Pkwy at creek, N of KCS T62 Proposed 10 10 5 25 3 6,305 3 218.75 1,379,219 along ROW RR at junction of T63 and T105
Plano Pkwy at creek along W T63 Proposed Josey Ln 23 5 14 42 2 4,139 Trail underpass of KCS RR 2 218.75 905,406 and N side of creek N city limit at Josey Ln along E T64 Proposed Diamond Ridge Road (B59) 8 13 9 30 3 3,610 W/WW 3 218.75 789,688 ROW
Indian Josey Ln along N side of Creek 1A, T65 Proposed creek, S of Cherokee, then LaVaca Trail 28 8 5 41 2 4,373 2 218.75 956,594 Drainage southward along city limit project
T66 Proposed Arbor Creek Blvd Trail 65 23 8 11 42 2 382 2 218.75 83,563 LaVaca Trail at Trail 65 T67 Proposed S of Hebron Pkwy at Trail 29 10 11 5 26 3 3,416 Hebron Pkwy crossing 3 218.75 747,250 across undeveloped area Polser Rd at junction of Trails 32 T68 Proposed Trail 69 and 33, through undeveloped 30 15 5 50 2 5,824 2 218.75 1,274,000 area T69 Planned N city limit with Hebron Junction of Trail 68 and 70 23 10 5 38 3 1,373 3 218.75 300,344 T70 Proposed Junction of Trail 68 and 69 Thomas Ln 3 0 0 3 3 3,538 3 218.75 773,938
Thomas Ln along city limit in T71 Proposed Junction of Trail 72 and 73 0 5 0 5 3 7,718 3 218.75 1,688,313 Coyote Ridge golf course
Oakwood Oakwood Springs Park at Springs 1, T72 Proposed Junction of Trails 71 and 73 25 3 20 48 2 525 Hebron Pkwy crossing 2 218.75 114,844 Hebron Pkwy park project
Junction of Trails 71 and 72, T73 Proposed Trail 39 at Hebron Pkwy S side 20 10 0 30 3 3,405 Hebron Pkwy crossing 3 218.75 744,844 along E side of Trinity River
Branch Hollow and Crystal Ln T74 Proposed (Neighborhood trail Trail 75 13 0 11 24 3 933 3 218.75 204,094 connections) T75 Proposed Creek Valley Blvd Trail 76, W of Legacy Trail 15 5 17 37 3 2,300 3 218.75 503,125 T76 Proposed Huffines Blvd Junction of Trails 75 and 77 18 8 18 44 2 1,393 trail head at Bastrop and Huffines 2 218.75 304,719
Oakwood Springs 3, T77 Proposed Junction of Trails 75 and 76 Trail 39 at Trinity River 25 8 9 42 2 6,896 2 218.75 1,508,500 park project
______City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan - Preliminary Final 06/24/05 Recommended Trail Segment Evaluations Appendix F Page 6 of 7
Improved Cost Segment Cost QoL-Env Overall Length Cost Segment Status E or N limit W or S limit Mobility P CIP Intersection Issues Notes /Linear Id# Score Score Score (Linear Ft) Key Cost Score Ft.
Trail 77 across SH 121 T78 Proposed Trail 77, W of SH 121 10 8 4 22 3 3,007 3 218.75 657,781 (Neighborhood connections)
Intersection Issue # 4. Proposed T79 Keller Springs is BLOS D-F here. Kellway St southward along N- T79 Proposed Keller Springs Rd 28 13 8 49 2 1,975 along N-S TXU easement at Keller Overpass or signalized at-grade 2 218.75 432,031 S TXU easement Springs Rd crossing. T80 Proposed Chenault St, N of Mid Court Trail 79 3 11 15 29 3 842 3 218.75 184,188 Country Square (Neighborhood T81 Planned Trail 79, N of drainage way 8 8 15 31 3 664 3 218.75 145,250 connections) Josey is D at this location. E of drainageway at Trail 3 Intersection Issue #27. Needs gap- Overpass or possibly user T83 Proposed Perry St 23 16 8 47 2 5,229 2 218.75 1,143,844 along N ROW of CBRR analysis. activated signalized at-grade crossing.
Perry St westward along N W of drainage way near Baxley T84 Proposed 23 18 4 45 2 1,892 2 218.75 413,875 side of Cottonbelt RR ROW at T86
W of drainageway near To Baxley and Erie T85 Proposed 23 18 6 47 2 444 2 218.75 97,125 Baxley under Cottonbelt ROW (Neighborhood connections)
Provides a connection from Intersection Issue #33. Feasibility of Baxley under the BNSF RR to a T86 Proposed Trail 84 under BNSF RR Trail 8 8 13 21 42 2 453 2 218.75 99,094 crossing under BNSF bridge over Hutton Branch to T8, the Hutton Branch trail Sandy Lake Rd: N side Whitlock Ln/ Sandy Sandy Lake Amusement Park at PGBT to T88 Proposed Lake Rd ROW from 25 8 5 38 3 4,396 3 218.75 961,625 President George Bush Turnpike Old UPRR/DART at Trail 46 Denton Rd Sandy Lake Amusement Park Coppell proposed trail connection. Junction of Trails 101 and 13 at T89 Proposed at President George Bush 20 10 5 35 3 3,903 Should be joint trail project with 3 218.75 853,781 Trinity River Turnpike Coppell.
T90 Proposed Larner along N side of creek Ross 10 10 13 33 3 653 3 218.75 142,844
Intersection Issue #8. Proposed trail Junction of Trails 9 and 10, W would need to cross Cottonbelt RR at Trail 11 at R.E. Good Sports T92 Proposed of Hutton Branch along N of 20 18 8 46 2 4,306 Luna Rd to cross at-grade, then Luna 2 218.75 941,938 Complex Cottonbelt RR ROW at Beltline the intersection, then back N along Luna, past CBRR to trail
Crescent (Neighborhood T93 Proposed Junction of Trails 9, 10 and 92 0 13 11 24 3 902 3 218.75 197,313 connections) Coppell Planned trail connection. Junction Trail 11, Cottonbelt N T94 Proposed City limit at Trinity River 20 8 14 42 2 1,730 Should be joint trail project with 2 218.75 378,438 ROW Coppell. Upfield St along Crosby Rd N many commercial entrance will need to T95 Proposed Luna Rd 3 13 9 25 3 4,140 3 218.75 905,625 side be addressed
Intersection Issue #7: Overpass to T97 Proposed Luna Rd, N of Valwood Pkwy Junction of Trails 96 and 98 0 11 13 24 3 2,761 Valwood Pkwy and on-street system; 3 218.75 603,969 or at-grade crossing of Luna Rd.
Irving trails connection should be T98 Proposed Junction of Trails 96 and 97 E bank Trinity River at T99 20 2 17 39 3 2,426 3 218.75 530,688 joint project with Irving
______City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan - Preliminary Final 06/24/05 Recommended Trail Segment Evaluations Appendix F Page 7 of 7
Improved Cost Segment Cost QoL-Env Overall Length Cost Segment Status E or N limit W or S limit Mobility P CIP Intersection Issues Notes /Linear Id# Score Score Score (Linear Ft) Key Cost Score Ft. Trinity River Bridge. NOTE: ALL TRINITY RIVER BRIDGE ESTIMATES ARE VERY LOW SINCE W bank Trinity River at Sam OVERALL MASTERPLAN COST Irving trails connection should be T99 Proposed E bank Trinity River 23 2 30 55 2 357 2 218.75 78,094 Houston Trail Park in Irving ESTIMATES FOR TRAILS INCLUDE joint project with Irving BRIDGES AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE LIKE RETAINING WALLS. E bank Trinity River at Belt W bank of Trinity River, at Belt Trinity River Bridge should be joint T100 Planned 23 8 30 61 1 310 Trinity River Bridge 1 242.42 75,150 Line Line in Coppell project with Coppell
E bank of Trinity River at W bank of Trinity River in T101 Proposed 23 5 20 48 2 518 2 218.75 113,313 McInnish Park 99 year lease Coppell
Lewisville planned trail connection E bank Trinity River W of I-35 W bank of Trinity River, in T102 Planned 3 15 30 48 2 194 Trinity River Bridge should be joint project with 2 218.75 42,438 E Lewisville Lewisville. Lewisville planned trail connection E bank of Trinity River at W bank of Trinity River in T103 Planned 23 10 30 63 1 347 Trinity River Bridge should be joint project with 1 242.42 84,120 Hebron Pkwy, S side Lewisville Lewisville. N of Virginia Pines, Trail 29 T104 Proposed Randall @ Rolling Oaks 10 5 15 30 3 1,503 3 218.75 328,781 along Silver Maple Plano Pkwy at junction of Trails T105 Proposed Hebron HS at Charles St. 30 8 5 43 2 3,455 2 218.75 755,781 62 and 63
Dickerson and Raiford/ MacArthur crossing with signalized crossing; Dickerson T27 at Furneaux Creek, E of Enhanced PGBT WBSR crossing, T107 Proposed DART Trinity Mills Station 28 23 19 70 1 4,020 Pwy, 1 242.42 974,528 Dickerson Pkwy moving trail from E to W side of DART Dickerson - See Trinity Mills DART Station Illustration.
Trade Center along S ROW of T108 Proposed T43 S of Frankford 23 20 11 54 2 769 2 218.75 168,219 Frankford
Intersection Issue # 32. Existing signalized at-grade crossing, improve S of Keller Springs Rd in Junction of existing T7 and T109 Proposed 20 8 16 44 2 1,268 crosswalk and install bike crossing 2 218.75 277,375 Josey Ranch Sports Complex planned T8 warning signs on Keller Springs at approaches to McCoy.
Along S and W boundary of T110 Proposed Raintree at Carriage (B96) Via Blanca at Willowgate (B58) 23 8 11 42 2 452 Country Place Elementary School 2 218.75 98,875 property Total 328,304 Total $ 70,146,850 Feet: Miles 12.52 $ P1: 16,025,902 P1: Miles 25.97 $ P2: 29,998,943 P2: Miles 20.88 $ P3: 24,122,005 P3:
Other: 2.81 $ Other: -
Total 62.18 Total $ 70,146,850 Miles:
______City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan - Preliminary Final 06/24/05
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05
Appendix G Recommended On-Street Bicycle Segment Evaluations
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05
Recommended On-Street Bicycle Segment Evaluations Appendix G Page 1 of 6
Seg- Improved Length Inter- Cost / BLOS Cost QoL-Env Overall Possible Low Cost Cost Segment ment Street E or N limit W or S limit Mobility P (Linear CIP Notes section Linear Status Score Score Score Treatments Key Cost Id# Score Ft) Issue # Ft. B1 A-B Arbor Creek Branch Hollow Cheyenne 45 13 5 63 1 7,339 1,2 1.71 12,550 B3 A-B Belmeade Midway Willowgate 45 13 0 58 2 7,102 1,2 1.71 12,144 B5 A-B Branch Hollow Arbor Creek Standridge 45 13 5 63 1 8,195 1,2 1.71 14,013 bike crossing warning signs on Old Denton B5.2 A-B Branch Hollow E of Hollow Way Mae 45 13 5 63 1 5,503 1,2 1.71 9,410 approaches to Branch Hollow bike crossing warning signs on Kelly and Keller B8 A-B Carmel Dr Willowgate Le Mans 45 10 5 60 1 8,887 1,2 1.71 15,197 Springs approaches to Carmel bike crossing warning Frankford - signs on Rosemeade B9 A-B Cemetery Hill Rd Branch Hollow Panorama 45 45 5 95 1 11,635 1,2 1.71 19,896 intersection approaches to Cemetery Hill Rd B12 A-B Country Club Dr Kelly Blvd Josey Ln 45 25 0 70 1 4,203 6 1,2 1.71 7,187
Bike warning signs on Josey approaches to Country Club and Hood; Widen s/w each side of A6D arterial jog is BLOS Josey for bicycle access; B12.1 D Josey Ln Country Club Dr Hood 10 25 5 40 2 262 D. Bad birdbath at Josey 6 1,3,7 62.08 16,265 or widen to 15' curb lane and Hood. here for BLOS for BLOS C. Reduce speed limit to 30 mph additionally for BLOS B.
Branch B13 A-B Countryside Ln Josey Ln 45 20 5 70 1 2,988 1,2 1.71 5,109 Hollow
Crosby is a C4U. This segment has some BLOS C ratings, but is overall rated as BLOS D inaccessible, and should not be signed until reconstructed with wide outside lanes. This B15.1 D-F Crosby Broadway Upfield 5 20 5 30 3 2,599 1,2,7 61.71 160,384 segment should include pedestrian and bicycle accommodation when reconstructed. Enhanced pedestrian and bike access under IH35E also needed when IH35E is improved.
______City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan - Preliminary Final 06/24/05 Recommended On-Street Bicycle Segment Evaluations Appendix G Page 2 of 6
Seg- Improved Length Inter- Cost / BLOS Cost QoL-Env Overall Possible Low Cost Cost Segment ment Street E or N limit W or S limit Mobility P (Linear CIP Notes section Linear Status Score Score Score Treatments Key Cost Id# Score Ft) Issue # Ft.
Intersection Issue #17: Crosby is a C4U. This Enhance Josey/ Crosby segment has some BLOS intersection with CIP C ratings, but is overall improvement. Intersection rated as BLOS D. Crosby Issue #30: arterial jog on Crosby is an important E-W Crosby, Perry to Perry, 17, 28, B15.2 D-F Crosby Josey Ln Broadway 5 40 5 50 2 4,290 (Broadway to connector in the southern 1,2,6 31.71 136,036 include improvements 30 Josey) 2006 part of city and should be with CIP project. widened to 14-15' curb Intersection Issue #28: lanes, w some speed Intersecting jog Larner to limit reductions from 35 to School on Crosby should 30 to achieve BLOS B. be improved with CIP
Intersection Issue #17: Crosby This segment should be Enhance Josey/ Crosby B15.3 C Crosby E of Milam Way Josey Ln 30 40 5 75 1 1,068 (Broadway to widened to 14' curb lane 17 1,2,4 21.71 23,186 intersection with CIP Josey) 2006 in the future. improvement. NOTICE 3 Carrollton Crosby/ Regan/ E city limit at Web E of Milam Highlands B15.4 A-B Ridgedale/ 45 40 5 90 1 3,626 1,2 1.71 6,200 Chappel Way 2006 and Towerwood Park Place 2007 B19 A-B Eisenhower Hebron Pkwy Halsey Way 45 20 0 65 1 10,165 1,2 1.71 17,382 widen s/w to back of curb, paint cross walk , A6D arterial jog is BLOS B21.1 D Hebron Pkwy Furneaux Rd Northcliff 10 23 5 38 3 275 bike crossing warning 15 1,2,7 61.71 16,970 D signs, etc; or widen outside lane to 15'. T20 at Croft / B21.2 A-B Furneaux Rd Hebron Pkwy 45 18 5 68 1 9,340 1,2 1.71 15,971 Furneaux B26 A-B Kellway Trail 79 Tarpley 45 13 5 63 1 658 1,2 1.71 1,125 improve in conjunction Belt Line, B29 A-B Main St Oak Broadway 45 40 5 90 1 483 with CIP and DART 1,2 1.71 826 DART projects Branch B30 A-B Quailcreek Dr Hebron Pkwy 45 18 5 68 1 1,621 1,2 1.71 2,772 Hollow
Existing signalized at- grade crossing at Keller Springs to park; improve crosswalk and install bike B30.1 A-B Mc Coy McCoy Ct. Keller Springs 45 40 5 90 1 3,980 McCoy crossing warning signs 32 1,2 1.71 6,806 on Keller Springs at approaches to McCoy. Keller Springs is BLOS D at this location.
McCoy, Lower speed limit to Jackson Rd Lower speed limit to 30 B30.2 C Mc Coy Northland McCoy Ct. 30 32 5 67 1 660 30mph for BLOS B; s/b 1,2 1.71 1,129 to Trinity mph 20 mph school hours Mills, 2008 S of Crooked B30.3 A-B Mc Coy Northland 45 40 5 90 1 3,471 McCoy 1,2 1.71 5,935 Creek
______City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan - Preliminary Final 06/24/05 Recommended On-Street Bicycle Segment Evaluations Appendix G Page 3 of 6
Seg- Improved Length Inter- Cost / BLOS Cost QoL-Env Overall Possible Low Cost Cost Segment ment Street E or N limit W or S limit Mobility P (Linear CIP Notes section Linear Status Score Score Score Treatments Key Cost Id# Score Ft) Issue # Ft.
old traffic counts, but-poor sightlines from Crooked N of Crooked S of Crooked Lane, needs bike warning B30.4 C Mc Coy 25 30 5 60 1 1,681 signage 1,2 1.71 2,875 Creek Creek signs, lower speed limit to 30 mph, has 18' lanes - ok; N of Crooked B30.5 A-B Mc Coy S of Palisades 45 40 5 90 1 688 1,2 1.71 1,176 Creek
old traffic counts, lower S of B30.6 C Mc Coy N of Palisades 25 30 5 60 1 455 speed limit to 30mph, 18' 1,2 1.71 778 Palisades lanes, should be ok
N of B30.7 A-B Mc Coy Golden Gate 45 40 5 90 1 384 1,2 1.71 657 Palisades is also jog for B82-B83 B31 A-B Medical Pkwy Lavaca Tr Hebron Pkwy 45 23 5 73 1 1,441 1,2 1.71 2,464 connection B32 A-B Metrocrest Dr Country Club Dr Crosby 45 25 5 75 1 4,127 1,2 1.71 7,057 B35 A-B Northside Dr Jackson St Cottonwood 45 25 5 75 1 2,261 1,2 1.71 3,866 Holiday Park B37.1 A-B Perry Crosby S city limit 45 40 5 90 1 4,358 30 1,2 1.71 7,452 2004 B37.2 A-B Perry Belt Line Crosby 45 25 5 75 1 1,670 30 1,2 1.71 2,856 20 mph school zone, B37.3 C Perry Pearl Beltline 30 25 5 60 1 594 should be BLOS B during 1,2 1.71 1,016 school hours B37.4 A-B Perry Cottonbelt RR Pearl 45 25 5 75 1 4,135 1,2 1.71 7,071 Old Denton B38 A-B Peter's Colony Kelly Blvd 45 25 5 75 1 9,518 1,2 1.71 16,276 Rd B39 A-B Pleasant Run E city limit School 45 25 5 75 1 1,578 1,2 1.71 2,698 N of B41 A-B Polser Standridge 45 8 5 58 2 4,812 1,2 1.71 8,229 Wildcherry B44 A-B Rabbit Run Rd Hebron Pkwy Countryside 45 18 5 68 1 2,812 1,2 1.71 4,809 B45 A-B Rolling Oaks Polser Randall 45 5 5 55 2 2,667 1,2 1.71 4,561
Intersection Issue #28. Crosby B47 A-B School Crosby Pleasant Run 45 30 5 80 1 1,826 Improve Crosby crossing 28 1,2 1.71 3,122 intersection with Crosby CIP project.
Northmoor- Bikes on roadway B48.3 C Scott Mill Rd Trinity Mills 30 13 5 48 2 846 1,2 1.71 1,447 way signage
Scott Mill Rd 2006 Uses existing trail to Scott Mill Rd / T20 at Ravine B48.4 A-B Trinity Mills 45 33 5 83 1 6,473 Frankford & connect Scott Mill Rd/ 1,2 1.71 11,069 Ravine Trail Trail Trinity Mills - Ravine Trail to Croft intersections
B52 A-B Spurwood Dr Silverway Lavaca Tr 45 13 5 63 1 2,098 1,2 1.71 3,588
Standridge, bike crossing warning W of Mourning B53 A-B Standridge Frankford Rd 45 33 5 83 1 7,768 Frankford - signs on Rosemeade at 1,2 1.71 13,283 Dove Ct at T29 intersections approaches to Standridge
______City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan - Preliminary Final 06/24/05 Recommended On-Street Bicycle Segment Evaluations Appendix G Page 4 of 6
Seg- Improved Length Inter- Cost / BLOS Cost QoL-Env Overall Possible Low Cost Cost Segment ment Street E or N limit W or S limit Mobility P (Linear CIP Notes section Linear Status Score Score Score Treatments Key Cost Id# Score Ft) Issue # Ft.
Widen sidewalk on S side of Frankford between Standridge and Pacifica. Cyclists cross Frankford A6D Arterial jog is BLOS at signal at Standridge D. Sidewalk improvement B53.1 D-F Frankford Standridge Pacifica 10 33 5 48 2 258 1,2,6 31.71 8,181 and Frankford. Bike costed out at $30 linear crossing warning signs foot. on approaches to Standridge-Pacifica connection.
B55 A-B Upfield Main Crosby 45 25 5 75 1 1,480 1,2 1.71 2,531
Bike crossing warning signs, crosswalk on B57 A-B Waynoka Branch Hollow Creek Bend 45 20 5 70 1 3,730 1,2 1.71 6,378 Rosemeade approaches to Waynoka
Bike crossing warning Arterial jog on Willowgate Via Blanca at Trinity Mills - signs on Keller Springs B58 A-B Willowgate Trinity Mills 45 28 5 78 1 5,304 between Dovecreek and 1,2 1.71 9,070 T110 intersection approaches to Shady Grove. Willowgate Diamond Ridge Josey Ln at B59 A-B Saddlebrook 45 15 5 65 1 3,621 1 0.19 688 Rd T64
currently could be a non- intersection crossing of sidepath along W Josey Josey Ln to reach T63, or B60 A-B Cherokee Path Melton Josey Lane 45 10 0 55 2 2,157 1 0.19 410 ROW use sidewalk to Diamond Ridge Road to cross at intersection
B61 A-B Westchester Diamond Ridge Lavaca Tr 45 13 5 63 1 2,321 1 0.19 441 On-street system would require spot B62 A-B Northcliff Lavaca Tr Hebron Pkwy 45 10 0 55 2 1,955 Intersection Issue #15 improvements on Hebron 15 1 0.19 371 Pkwy. Hebron is BLOS D here. B63 A-B Lavaca Tr Mesa King Arthur 45 18 5 68 1 6,950 1 0.19 1,321 B64 A-B Harper Ln Fairway Young 45 0 0 45 2 639 1,2 1.71 1,093 Highlands B74.3 A-B Kelly Blvd Marsh Ln 45 3 5 53 2 2,453 1,2 1.71 4,195 Creek B75 A-B High Country High Point Kelly 45 0 0 45 2 922 1 0.19 175 bike warning signs, B76 C Valwood Pkwy Hutton Luna 30 15 5 50 2 2,899 pavement markings on 1,2 1.71 4,957 Valwood Raleigh/ B79 A-B Kimberley/ Brighton Frankford Rd 45 25 5 75 1 2,731 1 0.19 519 Bellflower San Frankford - B81 A-B Pacifica Frankford 45 35 5 85 1 641 1 0.19 122 Francisco intersection Intersection Issue # 3, B82 A-B San Francisco Cemetery Hill Rd McCoy 45 30 5 80 1 2,614 Trail crossing road, 1 0.19 497 Overpass required
______City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan - Preliminary Final 06/24/05 Recommended On-Street Bicycle Segment Evaluations Appendix G Page 5 of 6
Seg- Improved Length Inter- Cost / BLOS Cost QoL-Env Overall Possible Low Cost Cost Segment ment Street E or N limit W or S limit Mobility P (Linear CIP Notes section Linear Status Score Score Score Treatments Key Cost Id# Score Ft) Issue # Ft.
Goldengate / bike crossing warning Peninsula / signs on Old Denton Rd McCoy from Goldengate B83 A-B McCoy Oxfordshire 45 40 5 90 1 5,265 1 0.19 1,000 Alameda / Clinton at approaches, consider to San Fran is also B30.4 / Staffordshire signalized crossing
Cambridgeshire/R edwood/ B84 A-B Northslope Cambridge 45 25 5 75 1 5,795 1 0.19 1,101 Staffordshire/Wilt shire/Berkshire Magnolia/ B86 A-B Cambridgeshire/ Frankford Berkshire 45 20 5 70 1 3,859 1 0.19 733 Wiltshire Cambridgeshi Dickerson - B87 A-B Cambridge Old Denton Rd 45 35 5 85 1 3,537 1 1 0.19 672 re intersection Golden Bear / Trinity Mills - B88 A-B Trinity Mills Rd Sojourn 45 23 5 73 1 1,856 1 0.19 353 Highlanderway intersection Do not sign unless B93 B94 A-B Chenault Keller Springs Wiley post 45 8 5 58 2 1,354 on Keller Springs is bike 1 0.19 257 friendly Wiley Post / B95 A-B Midway S city limit 45 8 5 58 2 1,220 1 0.19 232 Surveyor Ridgedale/ B97 A-B Webb Chapel Valleywood 45 18 5 68 1 2,155 1 0.19 409 Towerwood Northmoorway/ B98 A-B Scott Hill Josey Ln 45 13 5 63 1 2,755 1 0.19 523 Sunridge
Intersection Issue #6. Continuity will require improvement on Josey Ln jog to Country Club. Hood to Josey Ln BLOS D. No B99 A-B Hood Josey Ln Perry Rd 45 27 5 77 1 1,865 6 1 0.19 354 left turn at Gravley .Bad birdbath at Josey and Hood. Widen s/w each side of Josey for bicycle access.
Halsey Way/ Dickerson - No traffic counts on B101 A-B Nimitz/ Trade Dickerson Pkwy Frankford Rd 45 40 5 90 1 6,822 1 0.19 1,296 intersection Nimitz Center Russel/ Ryan/ Perry at Josey B104.1 A-B Denton 45 20 5 70 1 2,675 1 0.19 508 Perry Ranch
B104.2 C Denton Dr Russel Russel 45 20 5 70 1 314 Restripe for BLOS B Collector jog 1,2,3 3.6 1,130
Russel/ B104.3 A-B Denton Cottonwood 45 20 5 70 1 799 1 0.19 152 Ryan/Perry B105 A-B Cottonwood Russel Northside 45 25 0 70 1 2,212 1 0.19 420 bike crossing warning signs on Capital Pwy Stemmons Fwy B106 A-B Crescent Capital 45 25 5 75 1 3,493 approaches to Crescent, 1 0.19 664 (IH35E) enhanced pedestrian crossing B107 A-B Clint Baxley Belt Line 45 30 5 80 1 1,163 1 0.19 221
______City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan - Preliminary Final 06/24/05 Recommended On-Street Bicycle Segment Evaluations Appendix G Page 6 of 6
Seg- Improved Length Inter- Cost / BLOS Cost QoL-Env Overall Possible Low Cost Cost Segment ment Street E or N limit W or S limit Mobility P (Linear CIP Notes section Linear Status Score Score Score Treatments Key Cost Id# Score Ft) Issue # Ft.
bike crossing warning signs on Belt Line approaches to Jackson/ Belt Line - Myers; include bike and B108 A-B Jackson/ Myers BNSF Francis 45 45 5 95 1 1,948 1 0.19 370 intersection ped facilities in new road construction, including access to Hutton Branch trail T8
Walnut/ Jackson/ B109 A-B Warner Main 45 30 5 80 1 1,576 1 0.19 299 Oak
bike crossing warning Belt Line - B110 A-B Maryland Walnut Ross 45 45 5 95 1 976 signs on Belt Line 1 0.19 185 intersection approaches to Maryland
B111 A-B Francis Perry Meyers 45 45 5 95 1 4,028 1,2 1.71 6,888
Intersection Issue #28. Crosby - B112 A-B Larner Belt Line Crosby 45 40 5 90 1 1,078 Improve Crosby crossing 28 1,2 1.71 1,843 intersection with Crosby CIP project.
B117 A-B Randolph School Broadway 45 0 0 45 2 1,062 1,2 1.71 1,816 bike warning signs, Hutton is ok for work B118 C Hutton Crosby S city limit 30 15 5 50 2 5,748 pavement markings on 1,2 1.71 9,829 access Hutton Main St/4th B119 A-B UPRR Upfield 45 25 5 75 1 3,292 1,2 1.71 5,629 Avenue B120 A-B Greenwood Scott Mill at T54 Sunridge 45 18 5 68 1 1,209 1 0.19 230 Total 269,273 Total $ 690,906 Feet: Miles 42.76 $ P1: 303,354 P1: Miles 7.70 $ P2: 210,198 P2: Miles 0.54 $ P3: 177,354 P3:
Miles - $ Other: - Other:
Total 51.00 Total $ 690,906 Miles:
______City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan - Preliminary Final 06/24/05
Appendix H Sample Agreement for Trail Development within Texas Utility Electric Properties
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05
Sample Agreement for Trail Development Appendix H within Texas Utility Electric Properties Page 1 of 4
THE STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF DALLAS §
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
LICENSE AGREEMENT
This Agreement is made this __ day of ______, 199 by and between Texas Utilities Electric Company ("Licensor") and the City of , Dallas County, Texas ("Licensee"). RECITALS 1. Licenser is the owner of the land described in Exhibit" A', attached hereto and made a part hereof for all purposes, and referred to hereinafter as the "Property', upon which Property are located Licenser's high-voltage electric transmission lines and their supporting structures. 2. Licensee has requested that Licenser make available the Property for Licensee to construct, install, and maintain a hiking and jogging trail in order for the general public to use the Property for recreational purposes. 3. Accordingly, Licenser grants to Licensee the privilege to construct, install, and maintain a hiking and jogging trail on the surface of the Property, but with the conditions that such hiking and jogging trail shall be constructed, installed, and maintained in such a manner as not to damage or destroy Licenser's high-voltage electric transmission line, and that the recreational use of the Property shall not interfere with the continued operation and maintenance of Licenser's high-voltage electric transmission line. NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed as follows: 1. Licensee shall have the right to construct, install, and maintain a hiking and jogging trail, consisting of an improved surface on the Property for use by the general public for recreational purposes only. This License is strictly limited to the hiking and jogging trail to-be constructed, installed, and maintained on the Property and does not extend to the use of any of Licenser's facilities located on the Property. It is understood that construction and/or installation of the hiking and jogging trail shall not be permitted until plans for same have been approved by Licenser. 2. Consideration. In consideration for this License, Licensee shall pay to Licenser One Dollar ($1.00). 3. Non-Assignable. This License is personal to the Licensee. It is not assignable, and any attempt to assign this License will terminate the License. 4. Terminable At Will. This Agreement is terminable by either party at will by the giving of actual notice to the other party. 5. Security. Licensee shall be solely responsible for maintaining peace and order upon the Property and shall prevent any nuisances in or upon or connected with the Property. 6. Licenser's Access. Licenser and its authorized agents shall have the right to enter the Property at any time for any purpose. It is understood that from time to time entry will be necessary for inspections, maintenance, and work upon Licenser's facilities located upon the Property and, on such occasions, it may be necessary to close all or portions of the hiking and jogging trail and prohibit the public from using same. This License is not exclusive and Licenser, its employees, agents, representatives, and others whom it may license, may go upon, make improvements upon, use and traverse the Property and make changes in the location of or additions to Licenser's
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05
Sample Agreement for Trail Development Appendix H within Texas Utility Electric Properties Page 2 of 4 facilities located thereon without payment of compensation to Licensee, and without liability for any damage to the hiking and jogging trail or for any interruption of use of the hiking and jogging trail. 7 .Acceptance Of Premises. Licensee acknowledges that it has fully inspected the Property and accepts the Property in its present condition as suitable for the purposes for which it is licensed. Licensee shall not make or cause to be made any improvements to the Property and/or erect and maintain signage on the Property other than as approved by Licenser in advance, in writing, and then only at the sole cost and expense of Licensee. 8. Condition Upon Termination. Upon termination of this Agreement, Licensee shall surrender the Property to the Licenser in the same condition as received except for ordinary wear and tear. In addition, Licenser may require Licensee to remove any improvements made to the Property by Licensee prior to the termination of this Agreement and to restore the Property to its original condition, at Licensee's expense. All improvements not removed at Licenser's request shall become Licenser's property at no cost or expense to Licenser. 9. Assignment And Subletting. This Agreement is personal to Licensee and may not be sold, transferred, assigned or sublet but may be used by Licensee for recreational purposes only. It is the intention of this Agreement not to confer benefits, rights, or privileges on any person or entity other than Licenser and Licensee. No businesses, buildings, or other facilities, other than an improved jogging or hiking trail and appropriate signage shall be permitted to be installed upon the Property. 10. Use of cranes or other boom-type equipment in connection with any work to be performed on the Property by the Licensee, its employees, agents, representatives, or contractors, or the public generally, must comply with Chapter 752, Texas Health and Safety Code, the National Electrical Safety Code, and any other applicable clearance requirements. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, in no event shall any equipment be placed within 15 feet of Licenser's power lines situated on the Property. Licensee must notify Licenser 48 hours prior to the use of any boom- type equipment on Licenser's property. Licenser reserves the right to refuse Licensee permission to use boom equipment. 11. Maintenance Of Property .Licensee, at its own cost and expense at all times during the term of this Agreement, agrees to keep clean and maintain or cause to be kept clean and maintained the Property and all improvements which may be placed or erected on the Property by Licensee in a good state of appearance and repair. 12. Indemnity. Licensee shall defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless Licenser, its officers, directors, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, agents, and employees from and against any and all claims, expenses (including but not limited to attorneys, fees), demands, judgments, and causes of action of every kind and character including but not limited to claims in contract, tort, including negligence, or strict liability arising in favor of any person (including but not limited to employees, agents, or invitees of Licensee, including the general public) or entity for personal injury, bodily injury including death, or damage to property arising out of, instant to, or in any way connected with Licensee's exercise of rights herein granted or obligations pursuant thereto, including but not limited to separate operations being performed on the Property or any condition of the Property.
13. No Waiver Of Limitation Of Liability. By entering into this License Agreement, neither Licenser nor Licensee in any manner waive any right to assert any legal defenses available to either Licenser or Licensee, including, but not limited to, Chapters 75 and 101 of The Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. It is the express intention of Licenser to limit its liability for any injury, death or damage to person or property pursuant to Chapter 75.002, Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code (Vernon's, 1995). 14. Relocation Of Facilities. In the event Licenser relocates any of its existing facilities located on the Property in order for Licensee to accomplish its proposed use of the Property, Licensee shall reimburse Licenser for all costs associated with such relocation. However, Licenser is not required by this License Agreement to relocate any of its existing facilities. 15. Notices. All written notices required under this License must be hand delivered or sent by certified mail addressed to the property party at the following address: To Licensee: To Licenser: Manager, Real Estate & Right of Way TU Services
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05
Sample Agreement for Trail Development Appendix H within Texas Utility Electric Properties Page 3 of 4
Energy Plaza, 34th Floor Dallas, Texas 75201-3411 16. Texas Law. This Agreement shall be construed under, and in accordance with, time laws of the State of Texas. 17 .Amendment. No amendment, modification, or alteration of the terms of this License shall be binding unless it is in writing, dated subsequent to this License, and duly executed by the parties to the License. EXECUTED this day of , 199_. LICENSOR: TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY By Name: Title: LICENSEE: CITY OF By: Name: Title:
ATTEST:
CITY SECRETARY
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05
Sample Agreement for Trail Development Appendix H within Texas Utility Electric Properties Page 4 of 4
THE STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF DALLAS § BEFORE ME, the undersigned, a Notary Public, on this day personally appeared , of Texas Utilities Electric Company, known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that the same was the act of the said Texas Utilities Electric Company, a Texas corporation, and that he/she has executed the same as the act of such corporation for the purposes and consideration therein expressed, and in the capacity therein stated. GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF OFFICE, this day of ,199_. Notary Public THE STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF DALLAS § BEFORE ME, the undersigned, a Notary Public, on this day personally appeared known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that the same was the act of the said City of , and that he/she has executed the same as the act of such City, for the purposes and consideration therein expressed, and in the capacity therein stated.
GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF OFFICE, this ____ day of______, 199_.
Notary Public
Acknowledgement: This sample agreement is from the 1997 Dallas County Trail Plan, Appendix F.
City of Carrollton Pedestrian and Bicycle System Master Plan – Preliminary Final 6/24/05
CC MEETING: July 19, 2005
DATE: July 14, 2005
TO: City Council
FROM: Becky Miller, Mayor
SUBJECT: COUNCIL COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS
At the July 19 meeting, I plan to make the following committee assignments:
Audit/Finance
This committee has been functioning for several years. I am asking the following to serve for the next year:
Tim Hayden John Mahalik Ron Branson
Judicial
We disbanded the Judicial Committee a couple of years ago. I think it was a committee that provided a valuable communication between the Court and City Council so I am asking the following to serve this year:
Larry Williams Terry Simons Herb Weidinger
TOD
One of our major priorities is Transit Oriented Development. I want to create a new committee to work with staff as we plan for the future redevelopment near our rail stations. The purpose of this committee will be to develop an elected official—staff team to meet periodically to discuss the bigger issues the city will face regarding redevelopment.
Becky Miller Larry Williams Pat Malone
In a related matter, Sharon Goddard who is director of Keep Carrollton Beautiful has asked that a member of the City Council be assigned to interact with her board. I am asking John Mahalik to function in that capacity.
Since the downtown area will undergo significant redevelopment as part of our TOD efforts, I am asking Pat Malone to keep us informed of the activities undertaken by the Old Downtown Carrollton Association. Pat serves with that organization so she will be an excellent resource to keep us informed of their activities.
CC MEETING: July 19, 2005
DATE: July 13, 2005
TO: Leonard Martin, City Manager
FROM: Bob Scott, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2006 Community Service Requests
Background: As part of the annual budget process, City Council considers requests from community service entities for contract services funding. In prior years, the applications for funding have been reviewed by a sub-committee of council members. This sub-committee then made a recommendation to the full council. For the fiscal year (FY) 2006 budget process, Council has requested that the applications be reviewed by the full council. The community service applications and summary of the requests were distributed to Council in their weekly package on July 8, 2004. In addition to the applications, we receive a large amount of supporting documentation, i.e. marketing materials, financial statements, IRS tax determination letters, from the entities that we will bring to meeting to be used as reference materials.
Attached is the summary of the funding requests, a memorandum from Jane Mack regarding: limits on entities funded through Hotel/Motel Tax funds (tourism/advertising and arts), and a sample community service contract.
Based on direction from Council regarding fund levels, staff will incorporation funding for the Community Service entities in the FY 2006 Preliminary Budget to be distributed by the end of July 2005. After completion of the budget process and final approval of the budget by Council, staff will move forward with execution of contracts with the Community Service entities.
Action Required: Receive briefing on Community Service funding requests and provide staff direction on the proposed level of Community Service funding for each entity for inclusion in the FY 2006 Preliminary Budget.
Attachments: Community Service Funding Summary Memorandum re: Hotel/Motel Restrictions Sample Community Service Contract CITY OF CARROLLTON COMMUNITY SERVICE FUNDING HISTORY AND FISCAL YEAR 2006 RECOMMENDATION
Budget 2002- Budget 2003- Budget Requested General Fund Request 03 04 2004-05 2005-06 Notes
Bea's Kids 2,000 3,500 3,500 3,500 Mosaic - - - 5,900 CASA of Denton County, Inc. - - - 3,737 Children's Advocacy Center of Denton County, Inc. 8,000 9,000 9,000 10,000 Denton County Friends of the Family - - - 5,000 Denton County MHMR - - - 57,886 Keep Carrollton Beautiful - - 5,000 11,250 Metrocrest Family Medical Clinic 5,600 6,000 6,000 7,000 Metrocrest Social Services 66,000 66,450 74,700 74,700 Pediplace - - - 10,000 Senior Adult Services 116,000 125,000 135,000 135,000 Special Care & Career Services 4,000 4,500 4,500 4,500 The Family Place 4,000 4,500 4,500 10,000
General Fund Totals 205,600 218,950 242,200 338,473
Hotel/Motel Tax Request
Brookhaven College for the Arts 5,000 5,000 5,000 8,500 Carrollton Community Band 9,000 9,000 9,800 10,500 Carrollton Fair Association 8,500 10,000 5,000 10,000 Old Downtown Carrollton Association 15,000 15,000 15,000 21,000 Rover Dramawerks - 1,000 - 5,000 Texas Chamber Orchestra 5,000 5,000 4,000 5,000 Received Late (June 7, 2005)
Hotel/Motel Total 42,500 45,000 38,800 60,000
Total Funding $ 248,100 $ 263,950 $ 281,000 $ 398,473
DATE: July 12, 2005
TO: Leonard Martin, City Manager
FROM: Jane Mack, Marketing Director
SUBJECT: HOTEL MOTEL FUND RESTRICTIONS
As the City Council deliberates on allocating Hotel Motel Funds for Fiscal Year 2005-2006, it’s important to note that there are some limitations on expenditures from this Fund.
· The city collects Hotel Motel Occupancy Tax at a rate of 7%. Under state law, these revenues may only be used to promote tourism, historic preservation, and the encouragement, promotion, improvement and application of the arts. The Fiscal Year 2005-2006 target budget is $158,000, down $2,000 from the previous year.
· The Tax Code places a 15% limitation of the total revenues to be spent on the arts. The estimated revenues for 2005-06 are $158,000, so a maximum of $23,700 (15%) can be spent on the arts. A total of $29,000 has been requested from four groups in this category so reductions totaling $5,300 will be necessary.
Brookhaven Center for the Arts $ 8,500 Carrollton Community Band 10,500 Texas Chamber Orchestra 5,000 Rover Dramaworks 5,000 $29,000
· This year’s requests from the Carrollton Fair Association, the Old Downtown Association and requests from multiple city departments for tourism/advertising promotions and historic preservation programs total $148,500. The total available is $134,300 so reductions from these three requests must total $14,200.
Carrollton Fair Association $ 10,000 Old Downtown Association 21,000 Multiple City Departments 117,500 (see attachment) $148,500 Attachment: Multiple City Departments Detail
Visitor Relations Advertisements/Banners $ 15,000 Tourism Memberships 3,000 Tourism Recruitment/Information 21,000
Events/Promotions Elm Fork Nature Preserve 2,500 July 4th Celebration 40,000 A.W. Perry Museum 4,500
Historical Preservation A.W. Perry Museum 6,500 Projects/Markers 6,000
Tournaments Athletic 9,000 Golf Tournament Promotions 10,000
Total $117,500
THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF DALLAS
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
This contract is made and entered into on the ____ day of October, 2005, by and between the City of Carrollton, Texas acting by and through ______, its duly authorized City Manager, hereinafter referred to as the “City” and the Contracting Social Service Agency acting by and through its duly authorized Executive Director, ______herein referred to as the "Social Service Agency".
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Social Service Agency is an independent nonprofit corporation established under the laws of the State of Texas; and
WHEREAS, the City is charged with the responsibility of promoting and preserving the health, comfort, safety, peace, good government, and welfare of its citizens;
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of all mutual covenants and agreements hereinafter set forth, the parties do hereby covenant and agree as follows:
ARTICLE 1
This contract shall be effective upon execution by the parties and shall expire on the 30th day of September, 2005 unless terminated sooner as provided herein.
ARTICLE 2
The Social Service Agency agrees to provide programs and services designed to improve life situations of the residents of Carrollton, such as follows:
1) INFORMATION AND REFERRAL -Health and Social Service Issues -Job Opportunities -Support Groups -Transportation
2) INDIRECT ASSISTANCE -Collaboration with other agencies in the community for awareness of need and maximum utilization of resources. -Community education about issues, needs and resources. -Inquiry into the causes of identified problems. -Participation in the development of plans and strategies to address these causes. -Provision of volunteer opportunities for community-wide involvement in the programs of the Social Service Agency. ARTICLE 3
A. For the design, development and implementation of the programs enumerated in Article 2, the City shall pay to the Social Service Agency $______.
B. The City shall make payments on quarterly basis. The first quarter payment will be made within two (2) weeks of finalization of this contract. Subsequent disbursements will be made within two (2) weeks of receipt of the Social Service Quarterly Report. Social Service Quarterly Reports shall be provided prior to the 15th calendar day of the month after the end of the quarter. No payment shall be made during periods in which this provision is not complied with. Within 90 days of the Social Service Agency’s fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, a financial statement prepared by a Certified Public Accountant of all activities funded by this agreement shall be provided to the City. Such statement shall provide sufficient information so as to support the accuracy of the Social Services Quarterly Report. Additionally, the Social Service Agency shall maintain all books, documents, papers, accounting records and other such documents relating to cost incurred under this contract and shall make such material available to the city or its duly authorized representatives for review and inspection at its office during the contract period and one (1) year from the end of the contract period.
ARTICLE 4
The Social Service Agency agrees to assume and does hereby assume all responsibility and liability for damages sustained by persons or property, whether real or asserted, in connection with the performance of services performed and to be performed hereunder. The Social Service Agency covenants and agrees to, and does hereby indemnify and hold harmless the City and all of its officers, agents, and employees from all suits, action, or claims of any character brought for or on account of any injuries or damages, whether real or asserted, sustained by any person or property by or in consequence of any neglect, omission, act or conduct of Social Service Agency, its agents, servants or employees. The Covenants and liabilities of the Social Service Agency pursuant to this article shall not terminate with the termination or expiration of this Contract.
ARTICLE 5
This contract may be canceled and terminated by either party upon giving thirty (30) days written notice so to cancel or terminate to the other party thereto. The thirty (30) days shall commence upon receipt of such notice by the addressee and shall conclude at midnight of the 30th day thereafter. Prorated funding returned to the City by the Social Service Agency or additional funds due the Social Service Agency (not to exceed the budgeted amounts set forth in Article 3 (A)) shall be determined on the basis of the actual services provided and the actual costs incurred as of the effective date of the termination. Upon payment or tender of such amount, all of the City’s obligations hereunder shall be discharged and terminated and no action shall lie or accrue for additional benefit, consideration or value for or based upon the services performed under or pursuant to this agreement.
ARTICLE 6
The Social Service Agency shall observe and abide by all applicable federal laws, state statues and the Charter and Ordinances of the City, and all rules and regulations of any lawful regulatory body acting thereunder in connection with the services performed hereunder.
ARTICLE 7
No office or employee of the City or the Social Service Agency shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in this contract or the proceeds thereof that is violative of relevant provisions of the City Charter, City Ordinances or State statues dealing with conflict of interest.
ARTICLE 8
Venue of any action brought on or under this agreement shall lie exclusively in Dallas County, Texas.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed this agreement and have caused their proper corporate seal to be hereto affixed.
SOCIAL SERVICE AGENCY
ATTEST: By: ______Executive Director
______Date: ______
CITY OF CARROLLTON
______City Manager
Date: ______
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
______City Attorney City Secretary
CC WORK SESSION MEETING DATE: July 19, 2005
DATE: July 12, 2005
TO: Leonard A. Martin, City Manager
FROM: John Webb, Director of Urban Development JW
SUBJECT: Discuss HPAC Activities in the Downtown Carrollton and TOD Area
The purpose of this work session item is to provide an overview of the activities of the Historic Preservation Advisory Committee (HPAC) and seek input on the Committee’s role and potential projects in the Downtown Carrollton/Transit Oriented Development area.
BACKGROUND:
On May 1, 1990, the Carrollton City Council passed Ordinance 1627 creating the Historic Preservation Advisory Committee. As stated in the ordinance, HPAC “shall advise and make recommendations to the City Council to preserve the city’s landmarks and built environment, and to protect architecturally and/or culturally significant resources for future generations.” Staff support is provided by the Urban Development Department.
Since its creation, HPAC has recommended local historic recognition for the following sites or organizations:
1. A.W. Perry Cemetery 9. Carrollton Town Square 2. Belle Allen Home 10. City of Carrollton (incorporation) 3. Boatright House (no marker) 11. First United Methodist Church (congregation) 4. Bramblitt Woodright 12. Furneaux Cemetery 5. Carrollton Black Cemetery 13. Josey Rancho 6. Carrollton Heights Historic District 14. Plaza Theater (ordinance) 15. Riley Cemetery 7. Carrollton Post Office 16. Simms Chapel AME Church (congregation) 8. Carrollton Railroad Crossing 17. Town of Trinity Mills
Types of Local Recognition
Local historic recognition by the City of Carrollton may take one of two forms: by resolution or by ordinance. Recognition by resolution can be for a site, area, structure, event or a person or persons.
URBAN DEVELOPMENT Memo to Leonard Martin Worksession Discussion: HPAC July 12, 2005
With the exception of the Carrollton Heights Historic District, every local historic designation by the City of Carrollton has been by resolution.
Recognition by resolution carries no restrictions or requirements, nor does this recognition qualify the recipient for any local benefit. If applied to a specific structure, this type of recognition would have only symbolic effect on development or redevelopment, as there are no regulations pertaining to the demolition, modification or maintenance of a structure.
Recognition by ordinance is enabled by Article XX.3 (Historic Preservation Overlay District) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. As a component of zoning, recognition by ordinance carries enforceable regulations. The intent is that the specific regulations for each site or area will be tailored to fit the needs of the area and each is expected to be somewhat different from other sites or areas. In this manner, recognition by ordinance is similar to a Planned Development District.
Recognition by ordinance may qualify the recipient for a tax “freeze” benefit established by the Zoning Ordinance. This procedure can be for a specific site, structure, or for an area, but not for an event or person(s). To date, only the Carrollton Heights Historic District has been recognized in this manner. The ordinance establishing the District also established specific design regulations for the neighborhood.
Previously Approved Recognitions in Downtown Carrollton
There are five local historic recognitions in the Downtown Carrollton area which were established as a result of recommendation by HPAC and approval by City Council resolution:
1. Boatright House, 1101 E. Belt Line Road (no marker) 2. Carrollton Railroad Crossing (marker in storage due to anticipated construction of light rail station) 3. Carrollton Post Office 4. Carrollton Town Square 5. Plaza Theater
Three of the five (Post Office, Town Square & Plaza Theater) have markers on the town square.
Current Downtown Sites Under HPAC Review:
HPAC is working on two following projects in the Downtown Carrollton area:
1. American Legion No. 597 (group)
HPAC is working with the local American Legion group on a case narrative for local recognition. The recognition is proposed to be by resolution for the group (not the building or the site). It is possible that the site could be recognized, but neither HPAC nor the American Legion
G:\planning\Council Worksession Items\2005\071905\HPAC-Downtown Designations.doc Page 2 Memo to Leonard Martin Worksession Discussion: HPAC July 12, 2005
representatives see high value in the existing building; therefore, no regulations covering the building are contemplated. Recognition of the site would simply mean that any future building would be appropriately identified as the one-time site of American Legion Post No. 597.
2. Grain Elevator (site or structure)
HPAC is working on a case narrative for local recognition of the grain elevator near the public square. The recognition is proposed to be by resolution. No decision has been made as to whether the recognition would be for the site or the structure itself.
The structure itself is a widely-recognized visual symbol of Carrollton, and of an important period in the history of Carrollton. Given the small “footprint” of the elevator (approximately 3,000 square feet), the high cost to demolish it, and the existence of the “world’s tallest indoor climbing gym”; demolition may not be economically feasible.
Recently the City of Frisco announced its intent to purchase the grain silos in its downtown for preservation. In other instances, grain silos have been converted into residences such as the American Beauty Flour Mill south of Downtown Dallas.
Sites Eligible for Future Consideration
HPAC has identified two additional buildings in Downtown Carrollton that are worthy of consideration for historical designation in the near future.
1. Bank of Carrollton
HPAC has been approached by the current owners of the Bank of Carrollton Building (J.R. “Dick” Vandergriff and Joe de Sola) about local historic recognition. No formal case work has begun on this project, and the owners have not decided which kind of recognition (i.e. by resolution or ordinance) they are interested in. The building has been renovated by the owners and is an example of an adaptive re-use, sustainability and “place-making.” These are critical elements to a successful, historical element of Downtown Carrollton. (Initial drafts of the recently completed Transit Center Zoning Ordinance referenced the historical importance of this building).
2. Gravley Hardware Store
Although considered important to the history of Carrollton and on HPAC’s list of “proposed historically significant buildings,” HPAC has not yet started a case for this structure. (The historical importance of this building was also referenced in the initial drafts of the Transit Center Ordinance).
G:\planning\Council Worksession Items\2005\071905\HPAC-Downtown Designations.doc Page 3 Memo to Leonard Martin Worksession Discussion: HPAC July 12, 2005
3. St. John Baptist Church (1508 South Broadway Street)
Due to the action by the Construction Advisory and Appeals Board, no further HPAC work is anticipated for this site at this time. Representatives from the church have approached HPAC several times over the years and expressed interest in local recognition but never requested a specific type of recognition (for the congregation, the site or the building). In November 2002, HPAC approved a case narrative for future use pending specific direction from the congregation. If the building is not repaired and ultimately removed from the site, the city could recognize the site or congregation of the church.
Relationship Between Historic Preservation and Transit Oriented Development
The recently-adopted Transit Center Zoning District addressed the importance of the “Old Downtown Carrollton” area by creating the “Historic Core” subdistrict. Specifically, this provision was enacted to allow a “mixed use district where there is an historic character which is to be preserved or enhanced.” The intent was to maximize the development potential of Carrollton’s Old Downtown as the area redevelops yet retain the historical elements that contribute to a “sense of place.”
Properties adjacent to the square were rezoned to the Historic Core subdistrict which allows a mix of uses but limits the height of new development to a maximum of three (3) stories. In comparison, the area immediately adjacent to the proposed light rail station allows unlimited heights and densities. Of the approximately 130 acres rezoned to the high density, Transit Center District in the entire Downtown TOD area, a relatively small area was limited to the “Historic Core” designation.
IMPACT ON COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY:
As noted in the ordinance creating HPAC, the Committee is responsible for recommending and advising the Council on actions to preserve the city’s landmarks and built environment and to protect architecturally and/or culturally significant resources for future generations. Where appropriately applied, preservation adds to the quality of life of a community and directly relates to sustaining the assets of the city.
RECOMMENDATION/ACTION DESIRED:
HPAC serves solely as a recommending body to the Council. To ensure the Committee’s efforts are in line with Council’s strategic goals for Downtown Carrollton and Transit Oriented Development, staff desires to present this information to the Council for feedback regarding sites suitable for local designation.
G:\planning\Council Worksession Items\2005\071905\HPAC-Downtown Designations.doc Page 4
CC MEETING: JULY 19, 2005
DATE: July 14, 2005
TO: Leonard Martin, City Manager
FROM: Kathryn Usrey, Director of Human Resources Ali Aldaz, Human Resources Manager
SUBJECT: COMPENSATION UPDATE
BACKGROUND: The city receives and evaluates results of salary benchmarking on an ongoing basis. The benchmarking process enables the city to compare its pay plan structure with selected municipalities to assure that our pay plan and incumbent salaries are remaining within a certain percentage of the competitive market and that Carrollton is still a viable competitor in the field of hiring entities. Carrollton participates annually in two survey groups organized to compile data for cities, the Metroplex Survey Group and the Texas Municipal League.
Carrollton is competing on a much different playing field for qualified job candidates than it has in the past. Attached is the most recent benchmarking information and background that highlights challenges and some priorities for Council consideration.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Several key compensation initiatives are being built into the preliminary budget as “Additions to Base” which include a 3% overall compensation pool and additional steps for the Public Safety pay plans.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION/ACTION DESIRED: Review and discuss compensation information as one of several decision packages that will be provided to council during upcoming budget work sessions.
ATTACHMENTS: Sustaining City Government: “Framing Employee Compensation Issues and Challenges”
Sustaining City Government
Framing Employee Compensation Issues and Challenges
Leonard Martin City Manager
TABLE OF CONTENTS
General Information………………………..……Section One The Salary Survey Process How to Read the Salary Survey Data How to Read the Civil Service Salary Survey Data How to Use the City of Carrollton Salary Survey Data Comments and Observations
Non-Supervisory Employees…………….……...Section Two
Supervisory Employees………..……….…….…Section Three
Division Managers……………………...….…... Section Four
Department Directors…………………….….…..Section Five
Civil Service………………………….….……....Section Six Fire Police
Salary Survey Process
A salary survey is a benchmarking process through which a city compares its pay structure with selected outside organizations to assure that Carrollton’s pay plan and incumbent salaries are remaining within a certain percentage of the competitive market and that Carrollton is still a viable player in the hiring game.
To conduct a salary survey, cities years ago would compile a list of position descriptions where comparisons were desired. The information gathered was sent to all of the cities with whom they felt were comparable in terms of size of organization, number of citizens in the city, types of services provided, etc. The receiving cities were asked to “match” the jobs in their organization with those on the list and return salary information for that position. The originating city, Carrollton for example, would decide what the best application of available compensation dollars would be; to the pay plan itself, to individual salaries in the form of variable merit or in an across the board increase such as a Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA).
Today, while the process is very much the same, cities have organized themselves into groups of like staff size, services provided to their citizens, population of the city, etc. Now, instead of sending a survey to each city, all cities in the group agree to a list of common positions to be surveyed and respond on line to a centralized questionnaire. This approach lends itself to more convenient and higher quality salary survey data collection. Carrollton is a member of the Metroplex Survey Group, and Texas Municipal League of Cities survey group.
At the present time, Carrollton has identified the following cities for compensation comparison: Arlington Garland Allen Grand Prairie Dallas Irving Denton Lewisville Farmers Branch Mesquite Fort Worth McKinney Frisco Plano Richardson
Some of these cities are not members of the Metroplex Survey Group and we must still survey those cities individually. They include:
Allen Farmers Branch Lewisville Denton Frisco McKinney
Salaries are certainly not the only variable considered when a job candidate is weighing two alternative offers. However, when employment managers sit around and shoot the breeze they do refer to salaries as “table stakes” without which they feel they cannot even get in the game.
How to Read The City of Carrollton Salary Survey Data
· The City of Carrollton’s current pay plan is “banded” into five distinct groups:
Band One-Technical, non-supervisory positions Band Two-Advanced technical, supervisory positions Band Three-Division Manager positions Band Four-Department Director positions Band Five-Civil Service Police and Fire *Each of these group’s data is located behind a Tab in the material.
· The process used for gathering the data was described on the previous page. A series of positions were agreed to by members of the Metroplex and TML survey groups as the “survey” positions and job descriptions from each participating city are posted on the Web Site. All respondent cities decide whether or not they have a position that fits the job description posted and if they do, they provide salary date. If they feel that they do not have a comparable position, they respond “No Match”.
· The City of Carrollton has over two hundred and fifty job titles. Not all titles are surveyed. Generally, there are anchor positions identified in each band at the bottom, middle and top of the band and those are the positions for which data is gathered. In cases where there is a single incumbent, an additional job might be added. If there is reason to believe a particular group of positions are problematic for us in recruiting or retaining employees, those specific positions might be added to the survey.
· As you read the report, notice the use of color that is intended to help make reporting more clear. If Carrollton’s compensation is above market average, the number(s) will be reported in GREEN….if Carrollton’s compensation is below market average, the number(s) will be reported in RED. In the Civil Service data, the line representing Carrollton is, of course, BLUE and all other lines are dark red.
· Looking at one of the data sets, notice that there are four comparison columns:
The first is average salary. This number tells us where Carrollton’s position incumbent’s average salaries compare with the survey group.
The second, third and fourth columns are the minimum of the pay range, the middle of the pay range and the maximum of the pay range, both survey average and for the city of Carrollton.
· As the data is reviewed there are several items that are “red flag” items:
-When the pay plan is behind the market at the entry-level position, we have difficulty attracting preferred candidates for that position. For example:
Maintenance Worker # of Average Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max Weighted Avg 797 $2,144 $1,902 $2,300 $2,690 Carrollton 19 $2,045 $1,817 $2,143 $2,469 Relationship to Survey Data -5% -5% -7% -9%
-When the pay plan is behind the market at the middle or maximum position, we have difficulty retaining our talented position incumbents. For example:
Chief Planner
# of Average Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max Weighted Avg 26 $5,744 $4,243 $5,766 $6,793 Carrollton 1 $5,090 $4,572 $5,164 $5,757 Relationship to Survey Data -13% 7% -12% -18%
-The actual average salary, in some cases, is lower than the band minimum. This is due to the inclusion of part-time incumbents.
How to Read the City of Carrollton Civil Service Salary Survey Data
The Civil Service Salary Survey Data is reported in a slightly different format. The comparison cities are listed on the left hand side of the table at the top of the page. The asterisks by some of the cities indicate that their Civil Service units are 143.
Reading across the table is like reading material from the earlier sections in this document with the number of incumbents identified, the average salary column followed by the position minimum, mid-range and maximum salaries for the position.
The graph with the color designation for cities demonstrates all respondents’ positions relative to the mid-point by weighted average.
And, finally, the chart to the right of the graph represents the actual ranking of the cities surveyed.
How to Use the city of Carrollton Salary Survey Data
The first thing that happens to salary survey data is that it’s put into perspective. Taken alone, without sufficient back-up information is the survey data is not very actionable. There are several variables to help with framing:
· The city of Carrollton’s current pay plan structure is unlike most of our comparison cities, making getting a match challenging at some positions.
· There may be some margin of error in cities matching a particular position
· All comparison cities are not created equal.
· Remember that compensation is more that salary. Compensation includes the medical and life insurance that the city contributes, sick and vacation days that are available to employees, training provided by the organization, tuition reimbursement, vehicle allowance, certification and perhaps other initiatives. The point is that salary, while important, is one piece of the puzzle that is compensation and the pieces may be different for each organization.
· Data is only data until it is interpreted and evaluated in the context of the organization that gathers is. It is the organizations responsibility to analyze turnover, employee attraction, workforce performance, absenteeism and other variables to determine what role the salary survey results could be playing in the organizations overall competitiveness and sustainability.
Comments and Observations
· As an inner-ring city, one of those reaching build out, in Carrollton we find ourselves competing on a much different playing field for qualified job candidates with the outer ring cities where growth is booming. We have surrendered some very talented personnel to outer-ring cities as they staff to meet their growth demands. This is an organizational trend that bears close scrutiny.
· The “Addition to Base” in this year’s budget, for an additional step(s) in the pay structure for Police and Fire, if approved, will help to close the gaps identified in the survey data at the top of the pay ranges.
· On average, Band One is approximately 10% behind the market. Bands Two, Three and Four on average range from 5-7% behind the market.
· On average, all types of compensation taken into account including one time across the board payments, merit payments, COLA (Cost of Living Adjustment) payments, step payments, our comparison cities will be providing compensation adjustments ranging from 2% to 8% in fiscal year 2005-2006
City of Carrollton 2005 Salary Survey
Accountant 1
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max Weighted Avg 26 $3,787 $3,165 $3,966 $4,737 Carrollton 1 $3,804 $2,881 $3,400 $3,918 Relationship to Survey Data 0% -1% -17% -21%
Management Analyst
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max Weighted Avg 26 $4,016 $3,433 $4,232 $5,027 Carrollton 2 $3,347 $3,112 $3,672 $4,232 Relationship to Survey Data -20% -10% -15% -19%
Payroll Accountant
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max Weighted Avg 15 $3,061 $2,711 $3,260 $3,451 Carrollton 1 $3,310 $2,882 $3,400 $3,918 Relationship to Survey Data 8% 6% 4% 12%
Administrative Secretary
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max Weighted Avg 236 $2,954 $2,465 $2,996 $3,281 Carrollton 3 $3,167 $2,881 $3,400 $3,918 Relationship to Survey Data 7% 14% 12% 16% City of Carrollton 2005 Salary Survey
Customer Service Representative
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max Weighted Avg 303 $2,291 $2,171 $2,663 $2,870 Carrollton 3 $2,413 $2,288 $2,584 $2,880 Relationship to Survey Data 8% 5% -1% 7%
Accounts Payable Clerk
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max Weighted Avg 293 $2,373 $2,228 $2,696 $3,156 Carrollton 2 $2,452 $2,288 $2,699 $3,110 Relationship to Survey Data 3% 3% 0% -1%
Clerk 1
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max Weighted Avg 295 $2,339 $1,821 $2,211 $2,562 Carrollton 1 $2,303 $1,962 $2,314 $2,666 Relationship to Survey Data -2% 7% 4% 4%
Clerk 2
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max Weighted Avg 434 $2,313 $1,802 $2,302 $2,785 Carrollton 15 $2,373 $2,119 $2,499 $2,880 Relationship to Survey Data 3% 15% 8% 3% City of Carrollton 2005 Salary Survey
Graduate Civil Engineer
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max Weighted Avg 62 $5,716 $4,535 $5,579 $6,651 Carrollton 1 $4,000 $3,629 $4,282 $4,936 Relationship to Survey Data -43% -25% -30% -35%
Graduate Transportation Engineer
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max Weighted Avg 47 $4,689 $4,224 $5,109 $5,999 Carrollton 1 $4,423 $3,629 $4,282 $4,936 Relationship to Survey Data -6% -16% -19% -22%
Sr. Civil Engineer
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max Weighted Avg 31 $6,055 $5,100 $6,326 $6,500 Carrollton 1 $5,799 $3,629 $4,923 $6,218 Relationship to Survey Data -4% -41% -28% -5%
Sr. Transportation Engineer
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max Weighted Avg 64 $6,437 $5,241 $6,404 $7,604 Carrollton 1 $5,083 $3,629 $4,923 $6,218 Relationship to Survey Data -27% -44% -30% -22% City of Carrollton 2005 Salary Survey
Librarian 2
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max
Weighted Avg 117 $3,659 $3,407 $4,097 $4,767 Carrollton 10 $3,319 $3,111 $3,671 $4,232 Relationship to Survey Data -10% -10% -12% -13%
Library Assistant
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max
Weighted Avg 159 $2,471 $2,097 $2,586 $3,049 Carrollton 10 $2,489 $2,470 $2,915 $3,359 Relationship to Survey Data 1% 15% 11% 9%
Customer Service Tech
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max Weighted Avg 47 $2,526 $1,999 $2,528 $3,080 Carrollton 1 $2,646 $2,288 $2,699 $3,110 Relationship to Survey Data 5% 13% 6% 1%
Bailiff
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max Weighted Avg 70 $3,129 $2,740 $3,347 $3,840 Carrollton 1 $3,414 $2,669 $3,148 $3,628 Relationship to Survey Data 8% -3% -6% -6% City of Carrollton 2005 Salary Survey
Sr. Planner
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max Weighted Avg 37 $5,038 $4,064 $5,403 $6,381 Carrollton 1 $3,920 $3,920 $4,625 $5,331 Relationship to Survey Data -29% -4% -17% -20%
Claims Administrator
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max Weighted Avg 13 $4,074 $3,553 $4,464 $4,840 Carrollton 1 $4,316 $3,361 $3,966 $4,570 Relationship to Survey Data 6% -6% -13% -6%
Safety Specialist
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max Weighted Avg 14 $4,023 $3,449 $4,475 $4,634 Carrollton 1 $3,948 $3,361 $3,966 $4,570 Relationship to Survey Data -2% -3% -13% -1%
Animal Care Specialist
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max Weighted Avg 5 $2,488 $2,375 $2,897 $3,413 Carrollton 2 $2,339 $2,119 $2,393 $2,666 Relationship to Survey Data -6% -12% -21% -28% City of Carrollton 2005 Salary Survey
Crewleader-Grounds
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max Weighted Avg 443 $2,864 $2,579 $3,189 $3,355 Carrollton 6 $2,900 $2,669 $3,148 $3,628 Relationship to Survey Data 1% 3% -1% 8%
Equipment Operator I
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max Weighted Avg 110 $2,538 $2,229 $2,660 $3,198 Carrollton 14 $2,241 $2,119 $2,499 $2,880 Relationship to Survey Data -13% -5% -6% -11%
Maintenance Worker
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max Weighted Avg 797 $2,144 $1,902 $2,300 $2,690 Carrollton 19 $2,045 $1,817 $2,143 $2,469 Relationship to Survey Data -5% -5% -7% -9%
Mechanic 1
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max Weighted Avg 160 $2,966 $2,424 $2,984 $3,539 Carrollton 2 $3,008 $2,470 $2,915 $3,359 Relationship to Survey Data 2% 0% 0% 0% City of Carrollton 2005 Salary Survey
Concrete Crewmember-Streets
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max Weighted Avg 472 $2,201 $2,111 $2,547 $2,969 Carrollton 1 $2,424 $2,288 $2,699 $3,110 Relationship to Survey Data 9% 8% 6% 5%
Equipment Operator 2-Streets
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max Weighted Avg 270 $2,834 $2,406 $2,948 $3,446 Carrollton 6 $2,679 $2,470 $2,915 $3,359 Relationship to Survey Data -6% 3% -1% -3%
Crewleader - Water
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max Weighted Avg 326 $3,165 $2,868 $3,424 $3,847 Carrollton 5 $3,124 $2,881 $3,400 $3,918 Relationship to Survey Data -1% 0% -1% 2%
Equipment Operator 2-Water
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max Weighted Avg 233 $2,375 $2,137 $2,671 $2,659 Carrollton 9 $2,338 $2,470 $2,915 $3,359 Relationship to Survey Data -2% 13% 8% 21% City of Carrollton 2005 Salary Survey
Executive Secretary
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max Weighted Avg 147 $3,272 $2,757 $3,346 $3,951 Carrollton 8 $3,118 $2,881 $3,400 $3,918 Relationship to Survey Data -5% 4% 2% -1%
Recreation Coordinator
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max Weighted Avg 65 $3,656 $3,193 $3,939 $4,676 Carrollton 3 $3,212 $2,669 $3,057 $3,628 Relationship to Survey Data -14% -20% -29% -29%
Secretary I
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max Weighted Avg 670 $2,578 $2,080 $2,521 $2,947 Carrollton 8 $2,281 $1,962 $2,314 $2,666 Relationship to Survey Data -13% -6% -9% -11%
Billing Coordinator
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max Weighted Avg 12 $3,649 $3,249 $4,133 $4,464 Carrollton 1 $3,753 $3,112 $3,672 $4,232 Relationship to Survey Data 3% -4% -13% -5% City of Carrollton 2005 Salary Survey
Permit Specialist
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max Weighted Avg 166 $2,523 $1,948 $2,551 $3,135 Carrollton 2 $2,648 $2,470 $3,049 $3,628 Relationship to Survey Data 5% 21% 16% 14%
Deputy Court Clerk
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max Weighted Avg 138 $2,399 $2,196 $2,662 $3,124 Carrollton 9 $2,240 $2,119 $2,614 $3,110 Relationship to Survey Data -7% -4% -2% 0%
Dispatcher
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max
Weighted Avg 335 $3,025 $2,575 $3,122 $3,664 Carrollton 21 $2,721 $2,669 $3,148 $3,628 Relationship to Survey Data -11% 4% 1% -1%
Dispatcher 3 - Shift Supv
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max
Weighted Avg 74 $4,371 $3,506 $4,204 $4,589 Carrollton 3 $4,055 $3,361 $3,966 $4,570 Relationship to Survey Data -8% -4% -6% 0% City of Carrollton 2005 Salary Survey
Building and Zoning Codes Officer
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max Weighted Avg 78 $3,528 $3,063 $3,704 $4,347 Carrollton 2 $3,494 $3,111 $3,671 $4,232 Relationship to Survey Data -1% 2% -1% -3%
Code Enforcement Officer
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max
Weighted Avg 143 $3,179 $2,722 $3,361 $3,952 Carrollton 7 $3,207 $2,669 $3,148 $3,628 Relationship to Survey Data 1% -2% -7% -9%
Construction Inspector
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max
Weighted Avg 67 $3,795 $3,135 $3,724 $4,447 Carrollton 6 $3,281 $3,111 $3,671 $4,232 Relationship to Survey Data -16% -1% -1% -5%
Sr. Building and Zoning Codes Officer
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max Weighted Avg 66 $3,683 $3,052 $3,605 $4,053 Carrollton 2 $4,048 $3,920 $4,625 $5,331 Relationship to Survey Data 9% 22% 22% 24% City of Carrollton 2005 Salary Survey
Detention Officer
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max Weighted Avg 193 $2,712 $2,347 $2,882 $3,366 Carrollton 12 $2,584 $2,288 $2,699 $3,110 Relationship to Survey Data -5% -3% -7% -8%
Chief Planner
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max Weighted Avg 26 $5,744 $4,243 $5,766 $6,793 Carrollton 1 $5,090 $4,572 $5,164 $5,757 Relationship to Survey Data -13% 7% -12% -18%
Engineering Tech
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max Weighted Avg 52 $3,767 $3,031 $3,673 $4,347 Carrollton 1 $2,910 $2,881 $3,400 $3,918 Relationship to Survey Data -29% -5% -8% -11%
Sr. Engineer Tech/GIS Analyst
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max
Weighted Avg 28 $4,050 $3,514 $4,473 $3,430 Carrollton 1 $3,470 $3,361 $3,796 $4,232 Relationship to Survey Data -17% -5% -18% 19% City of Carrollton 2005 Salary Survey
Animal Service Officer
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max Weighted Avg 103 $2,594 $2,395 $2,915 $3,429 Carrollton 6 $2,810 $2,669 $3,148 $3,628 Relationship to Survey Data 3% 1% 1% 1%
Craft Technician
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max Weighted Avg 80 $3,129 $2,898 $3,544 $3,802 Carrollton 6 $2,851 $2,669 $3,148 $3,628 Relationship to Survey Data -10% -9% -13% -5%
Meter Maintenance Reader
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max Weighted Avg 115 $2,183 $1,905 $2,416 $2,889 Carrollton 4 $2,294 $2,119 $2,499 $2,880 Relationship to Survey Data 5% 10% 3% 0%
Chemical Applicator
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max Weighted Avg 22 $3,649 $2,461 $2,977 $3,493 Carrollton 4 $2,554 $2,470 $2,915 $3,359 Relationship to Survey Data -14% 0% -2% -4% City of Carrollton 2005 Salary Survey
Mechanic 2
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max Weighted Avg 246 $3,111 $2,535 $3,132 $3,279 Carrollton 9 $3,290 $2,881 $3,400 $3,918 Relationship to Survey Data 5% 12% 8% 16%
Signs and Markings Tech 2
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max Weighted Avg 109 $2,461 $2,273 $2,818 $2,904 Carrollton 2 $2,715 $2,669 $3,146 $3,628 Relationship to Survey Data 9% 15% 10% 20%
Signal Tech 1
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max Weighted Avg 87 $3,649 $2,651 $3,235 $3,787 Carrollton 3 $2,501 $2,470 $2,915 $3,359 Relationship to Survey Data -14% -7% -11% -13%
Signal Tech 2
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max Weighted Avg 472 $2,201 $2,111 $2,547 $2,969 Carrollton 1 $2,424 $2,288 $2,699 $3,110 Relationship to Survey Data 9% 8% 6% 5% City of Carrollton 2005 Salary Survey
Utility Service Repairer # of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max Weighted Avg 315 $2,256 $2,133 $2,580 $2,782 Carrollton 4 $2,186 $1,962 $2,314 $2,666 Relationship to Survey Data -3% -9% -12% -4%
Sr. Maintenance Tech
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max Weighted Avg 79 $2,854 $2,960 $3,605 $4,186 Carrollton 1 $3,808 $2,881 $3,726 $4,570 Relationship to Survey Data 14% -4% -3% -2%
Pump Station Operator
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max Weighted Avg 143 $2,727 $2,355 $2,895 $3,109 Carrollton 5 $2,449 $2,119 $2,499 $2,880 Relationship to Survey Data -11% -11% -16% -8%
Water Quality Technician
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max Weighted Avg 162 $3,098 $2,483 $3,033 $3,540 Carrollton 2 $2,779 $2,669 $3,148 $3,628 Relationship to Survey Data -11% 7% 4% 2% City of Carrollton 2005 Salary Survey
Maintenance Supervisor
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max Weighted Avg 65 $3,830 $3,403 $4,196 $4,888 Carrollton 3 $4,203 $3,362 $3,966 $4,571 Relationship to Survey Data 9% -1% -6% -7%
Utility Accounting Supervisor
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max Weighted Avg 28 $4,141 $3,529 $4,379 $5,164 Carrollton 1 $4,507 $3,921 $4,626 $5,331 Relationship to Survey Data 8% 10% 5% 3%
Registered Sanitarian
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max Weighted Avg 83 $3,625 $3,336 $4,112 $4,818 Carrollton 2 $3,498 $2,707 $4,060 $5,414 Relationship to Survey Data -4% -23% -1% 11%
Superintendent of Construction Inspection
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max Weighted Avg 15 $5,317 $4,225 $5,226 $6,072 Carrollton 1 $5,256 $3,921 $4,626 $5,331 Relationship to Survey Data -1% -8% -13% -14% City of Carrollton 2005 Salary Survey
Recreation Center Supervisor
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max Weighted Avg 57 $3,777 $3,422 $4,185 $4,908 Carrollton 1 $4,291 $3,921 $4,626 $5,331 Relationship to Survey Data 12% 13% 10% 8%
Metershop Supervisor
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max Weighted Avg 13 $3,940 $3,454 $4,352 $5,109 Carrollton 1 $4,204 $3,630 $4,283 $4,936 Relationship to Survey Data 6% 5% -2% -3% City of Carrollton 2005 Salary Survey
Division Mgr. Animal Services
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max Weighted Avg 11 $4,268 $4,042 $4,853 $5,585 Carrollton 1 $5,828 $4,114 $6,171 $8,228 Relationship to Survey Data 27% 2% 21% 32%
Division Mgr-Facility Services
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max Weighted Avg 10 $5,848 $5,180 $6,348 $7,124 Carrollton 1 $6,254 $6,171 $7,200 $8,228 Relationship to Survey Data 6% 16% 12% 13%
Internal Auditor/Reengineering
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max Weighted Avg 21 $4,887 $3,870 $4,860 $5,762 Carrollton 1 $6,185 $4,114 $6,171 $8,228 Relationship to Survey Data 21% 6% 21% 30%
Division Mgr. Purchasing
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max Weighted Avg 32 $5,453 $4,402 $6,025 $7,206 Carrollton 1 $6,289 $4,114 $6,171 $8,228 Relationship to Survey Data 13% -7% 2% 12% City of Carrollton 2005 Salary Survey
Human Resources Manager
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max Weighted Avg 19 $6,659 $5,072 $6,717 $7,664 Carrollton 1 $6,185 $4,114 $6,171 $8,228 Relationship to Survey Data -8% -23% -9% 7%
Telecommunications Manager
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max Weighted Avg 8 $4,970 $4,725 $5,845 $6,820 Carrollton 1 $4,590 $4,114 $6,171 $8,228 Relationship to Survey Data -8% -15% 5% 17%
Municipal Court Administrator
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max Weighted Avg 8 $7,129 $5,525 $7,547 $9,133 Carrollton 1 $6,786 $6,171 $7,200 $8,228 Relationship to Survey Data -5% 11% -5% -11%
Risk Manager
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max Weighted Avg 9 $6,573 $5,324 $6,547 $7,777 Carrollton 1 $6,851 $6,171 $7,200 $8,228 Relationship to Survey Data 4% 14% 10% 5% City of Carrollton 2005 Salary Survey
Assistant City Manager
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max
Weighted Avg 33 $11,269 $6,043 $10,607 $12,579 Carrollton 3 $10,977 $5,982 $8,972 $11,963 Relationship to Survey Data -3% -1% -18% -5%
Director Human Resources
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max
Weighted Avg 13 $8,803 $5,447 $9,098 $10,896 Carrollton 1 $8,901 $5,982 $8,972 $11,963 Relationship to Survey Data 1% 9% -1% 9%
Director Parks and Recreation
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max Weighted Avg 14 $9,418 $5,197 $9,232 $10,917 Carrollton 1 $9,078 $5,982 $8,972 $11,963 Relationship to Survey Data -4% 13% -3% 9%
Director Public Works
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max Weighted Avg 13 $9,529 $6,511 $9,583 $11,386 Carrollton 1 $9,257 $5,982 $8,972 $11,963 Relationship to Survey Data -3% -9% -7% 5% City of Carrollton 2005 Salary Survey
Building Official
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max
Weighted Avg 15 $6,359 $5,222 $6,449 $7,554 Carrollton 1 $8,212 $5,982 $8,972 $11,963 Relationship to Survey Data 23% 13% 28% 37%
Director Library
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max
Weighted Avg 12 $8,724 $5,418 $8,900 $10,754 Carrollton 1 $8,054 $5,982 $8,972 $11,963 Relationship to Survey Data -8% 9% 1% 10%
Director Planning
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max Weighted Avg 12 $8,681 $5,679 $8,608 $10,278 Carrollton 1 $8,082 $5,982 $8,972 $11,963 Relationship to Survey Data -7% 5% 4% 14%
City Engineer (Director of Engineering)
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max Weighted Avg 9 $8,524 $6,834 $8,085 $9,315 Carrollton 1 $7,752 $6,171 $7,200 $8,228 Relationship to Survey Data -10% -11% -12% -13% City of Carrollton 2005 Civil Service Salary Survey
FIREFIGHTER
Matching Job # of Average 143 Participant Title FLSA Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max
Arlington Firefighter N 118 $4,183 $3,152 $3,795 $4,438 Allen Firefighter N 43 $3,652 $3,367 $3,867 $4,443 Dallas Fire Prevention Officer N 635 $4,595 $3,474 $4,302 $5,131 * Denton Fire Fighter N 59 $3,938 $3,446 $3,727 $4,113 Farmers Branch Fire ESO N 28 $4,345 $3,653 $3,999 $4,345 * Forth Worth Firefighter N 410 $4,216 $3,477 $3,958 $4,438 Frisco Firefighter/EMT N 31 $3,630 $3,511 $4,023 $4,534 * Garland Firefighter N 121 $4,375 $3,866 $4,173 $4,480 * Grand Prairie Firefighter N 90 $4,190 $3,290 $4,090 $4,620 * Irving Firefighter N 110 $4,483 $3,299 $4,010 $4,643 Lewisville Firefighter N 66 $3,695 $3,114 $3,622 $4,129 * Mesquite Firefighter N 101 $4,593 $3,757 $4,276 $4,795 Mckinney Firefighter N 59 $3,840 $3,200 $3,955 $4,479 * Plano Fire Rescue Specialist N 176 $4,824 $4,039 $4,686 $5,333 Richardson Firefighter N 81 $4,453 $3,537 $4,141 $4,745 2128 $4,201 $3,479 $4,042 $4,578
* Carrollton Firefighter N 34 $4,299 $3,682 $4,059 $4,433 Weighted AVG $4,374 $3,492 $4,056 $4,596 -2% 5% 0% -4%
$6,000 City Ranking
Average Ranked $5,000 Salary Salaries
Plano $4,824 1
$4,000 Dallas $4,595 2 Mesquite $4,593 3 Irving $4,483 4 Richardson $4,453 5 $3,000 Garland $4,375 6 Farmers Branch $4,345 7 Carrollton $4,299 8 $2,000 Fort Worth $4,216 9 Grand Prairie $4,190 10 Arlington $4,183 11
$1,000 Denton $3,938 12 McKinney $3,840 13 Lewisville $3,695 14 Allen $3,652 15 $0 Frisco $3,630 16 Allen Dallas Frisco Irving Plano Denton Garland Arlington Lewisville Mesquite Mckinney Carrollton Forth Worth Richardson Grand Prairie Farmers Branch
Average Salary Weighted Average
*Chart Weighted Average Based on Mid City of Carrollton 2005 Civil Service Salary Survey
APPARATUS OPERATOR
Matching Job # of Average 143 Participant Title FLSA Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max
Arlington Fire Apparatus Operator N 64 $4,759 $4,562 $4,676 $4,791 Allen Driver Operator Engineer N 12 $4,375 $3,737 $4,293 $4,931 Dallas Fire Driver Engineer N 388 $5,205 $3,572 $4,614 $5,657 * Denton Fire Driver N 36 $4,467 $4,467 $4,467 $4,467 Farmers Branch Fire Equipment Operator (driver) N * Fort Worth Fire Engineer N 182 $4,819 $4,694 $4,811 $4,928 Frisco No Match * Garland Fire Driver N 65 $5,096 $4,868 $4,992 $5,115 * Grand Prairie Fire Engineer N 39 $5,075 $5,075 $5,075 $5,075 * Irving Fire Equipment Operator N 90 $5,043 $4,806 $4,926 $5,046 Lewisville Driver/Engineer N 24 $4,738 $4,512 $4,512 $4,512 * Mesquite Fire Driver Engineer N 28 $5,083 $5,083 $5,083 $5,083 McKinney Fire Driver Operator N 14 $4,512 $3,711 $4,267 $5,195 * Plano Fire Apparatus Operator N 48 $5,549 $5,238 $5,548 $5,857 Richardson Driver/Engineer N 21 $5,235 $4,982 $5,108 $5,235 1011 $4,920 $4,562 $4,798 $5,069
* Carrollton Apparatus Operator N 28 $4,987 $4,704 $4,892 $5,039 Weighted AVG $5,038 $4,583 $4,834 $5,084 -1% 3% 1% -1%
$6,000 City Ranking Average Ranked $5,000 Salary Salaries
Plano $5,549 1 $4,000 Richardson $5,235 2 Dallas $5,205 3 Garland $5,096 4 $3,000 Mesquite $5,083 5 Grand Prairie $5,075 6 Irving $5,043 7 $2,000 Carrollton $4,987 8 Fort Worth $4,819 9 Arlington $4,759 10 $1,000 Lewisville $4,738 11 McKinney $4,512 12 Denton $4,467 13 $0 Allen $4,375 14 Allen Dallas Frisco Irving Plano Denton Garland Arlington Lewisville Mesquite McKinney Carrollton Farmers Branch No Match Fort Worth Richardson Grand Prairie Farmers Branch Frisco No Match
Average Salary Weighted Average *Chart Weighted Average Based on Mid City of Carrollton 2005 Civil Service Salary Survey
FIRE CAPTAIN
Matching Job # of Average 143 Participant Title FLSA Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max
Arlington Fire Captain N 16 $6,022 $5,786 $5,931 $6,077 Allen Fire Captain N 13 $5,129 $4,708 $5,409 $6,213 Dallas Fire Captain E 124 $6,645 $4,502 $5,644 $6,786 * Denton Fire Captain N 22 $5,390 $5,390 $5,390 $5,390 Farmers Branch Fire Captain N 6 $5,715 $5,015 $5,365 $5,715 * Fort Worth Fire Captain N 79 $6,125 $5,832 $5,978 $6,124 Frisco Fire Captain N 1 $6,666 $5,477 $5,275 $7,073 * Garland Fire Captain N 35 $6,200 $5,940 $6,082 $6,224 * Grand Prairie Fire Captain N 11 $6,245 $6,000 $6,150 $6,300 * Irving Fire Captain N 39 $6,289 $5,705 $5,990 $6,289 Lewisville Fire Captain N 21 $5,432 $5,208 $5,339 $5,469 * Mesquite Fire Captain N 28 $6,506 $6,506 $6,506 $6,506 McKinney Fire Captain N 16 $5,527 $4,669 $5,369 $6,536 * Plano Fire Captain N 30 $7,023 $6,607 $6,930 $7,252 Richardson Captain-Fire N 21 $6,501 $6,060 $6,293 $6,526 462 $6,094 $5,560 $5,843 $6,299
* Carrollton Fire Captain N 27 $6,126 $5,868 $6,044 $6,225 Weighted AVG $6,262 $5,593 $5,890 $6,318 -2% 5% 3% -1%
$8,000 City Ranking Average Ranked $7,000 Salary Salaries
$6,000 Plano $7,023 1 Frisco $6,666 2 Dallas $6,645 3 $5,000 Weighted Average Mesquite $6,506 4 Richardson $6,501 5 Irving $6,289 6 $4,000 Grand Prairie $6,245 7 Garland $6,200 8 Carrollton $6,126 9 $3,000 Fort Worth $6,125 10 Arlington $6,022 11
$2,000 Farmers Branch $5,715 12 McKinney $5,527 13 Lewisville $5,432 14
$1,000 Denton $5,390 15 Allen $5,129 16
$0
Allen Dallas Frisco Irving Plano Denton Garland Arlington Lewisville Mesquite McKinney Carrollton Fort Worth Richardson Grand Prairie Farmers Branch
Average Salary Weighted Average
*Chart Weighted Average Based on Mid City of Carrollton 2005 Civil Service Salary Survey
BATTALION CHIEF
Matching Job # of Average 143 Participant Title FLSA Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max
Arlington Fire Battalion Chief N 12 $6,866 $6,590 $6,755 $6,921 Allen Battalion Fire Chief N 1 $5,041 $5,345 $6,139 $7,052 Dallas Fire Battalion Chief E 30 $7,340 $4,940 $6,193 $7,447 * Denton Fire Battalion Chief N 6 $6,086 $6,086 $6,086 $6,086 Farmers Branch Battalion Chief N 3 $6,473 $6,021 $6,290 $6,565 * Fort Worth Fire Battalion Chief E 23 $7,013 $6,376 $6,702 $7,029 Frisco Fire Battalion Chief E 2 $8,944 $6,253 $7,503 $8,755 * Garland Fire Battalion Chief N 4 $6,982 $6,647 $6,814 $6,982 * Grand Prairie Fire Battalion Chief N 3 $6,987 $6,762 $6,931 $7,100 * Irving Fire Battalion Chief E 7 $7,014 $6,362 $6,680 $7,014 Lewisville Shift Commander N 3 $6,229 $6,075 $6,152 $6,229 * Mesquite No Match McKinney Fire Battalion Chief E 3 $6,803 $5,435 $6,251 $7,610 * Plano District Section Manager E 5 $8,064 $8,011 $8,144 $8,144 Richardson Battalion Fire Chief E 5 $7,280 $6,930 $7,196 $7,462 107 $6,937 $6,274 $6,703 $7,171
* Carrollton Battalion Chief N 6 $6,729 $6,594 $6,792 $6,996 Weighted AVG $7,071 $6,314 $6,758 $7,213 -5% 4% 0% -3%
$8,000 City Ranking
$7,000 Average Ranked Salary Salaries
$6,000 Frisco $8,944 1 Plano $8,064 2 $5,000 Dallas $7,340 3 Richardson $7,280 4 Irving $7,014 5 $4,000 Fort Worth $7,013 6 Grand Prairie $6,987 7 $3,000 Garland $6,982 8 Arlington $6,866 9 McKinney $6,803 10 $2,000 Carrollton $6,729 11 Farmers Branch $6,473 12 $1,000 Lewisville $6,229 13 Weighted Average Denton $6,086 14 Allen $5,041 15 $0 Mesquite No Match Allen Dallas Frisco Irving Plano Denton Garland Arlington Lewisville Mesquite McKinney Carrollton Fort Worth Richardson Grand Prairie Farmers Branch
Average Salary Weighted Average
*Chart Weighted Average Based on Mid City of Carrollton 2005 Civil Service Salary Survey
ASSISTANT FIRE CHIEF
Matching Job # of Average 143 Participant Title FLSA Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max
Arlington Assistant Fire Chief E 3 $8,951 $6,927 $8,659 $9,092 Allen Assistant Fire Chief E 1 $6,999 $6,093 $6,999 $8,039 Dallas Fire Assistant Chief E 5 $9,129 $5,475 $7,662 $9,850 * Denton Division Chief N 1 $6,874 $6,874 $6,874 $6,874 Farmers Branch Deputy Fire Chief E 2 $7,270 $6,171 $7,251 $8,331 * Fort Worth No Match Frisco Assistant Fire Chief/Fire Marshall E 1 $9,427 $6,734 $8,080 $9,427 * Garland Fire Assistant Chief E 2 $8,505 $8,112 $8,309 $8,505 * Grand Prairie Assistant Fire Chief N 2 $8,200 $8,000 $8,200 $8,400 * Irving Assistant Fire Chief E 2 $8,603 $7,077 $7,998 $8,603 Lewisville Assistant Fire Chief E 2 $7,196 $6,858 $7,027 $7,196 * Mesquite Fire Assistant Chief E 2 $8,942 $8,942 $8,942 $8,942 McKinney Assistant Fire Chief E 1 $8,641 $6,202 $7,132 $8,683 * Plano Division Chief E 3 $8,780 $8,780 $8,780 $8,780 Richardson Assistant Fire Chief E 2 $8,302 $7,982 $8,302 $8,621 28 $8,273 $7,159 $7,873 $8,525
* Carrollton Assistant Fire Chief N 1 $7,837 $7,837 $8,072 $8,314 Weighted AVG $8,442 $7,183 $7,945 $8,563 -8% 8% 2% -3%
$9,000 City Ranking Average Ranked $8,000 Salary Salaries
$7,000 Frisco $9,427 1 Dallas $9,129 2 $6,000 Arlington $8,951 3 Mesquite $8,942 4 $5,000 Plano $8,780 5 McKinney $8,641 6
$4,000 Irving $8,603 7 Garland $8,505 8
$3,000 Richardson $8,302 9 Grand Prairie $8,200 10 Carrollton $7,837 11 $2,000 Farmers Branch $7,270 12 Lewisville $7,196 13 $1,000 Allen $6,999 14 Denton $6,874 15 $0 Fort Worth No Match
Allen Dallas Frisco Irving Plano Denton Garland Arlington Lewisville Mesquite McKinney Carrollton Fort Worth Richardson Grand Prairie Farmers Branch
Average Salary Weighted Average
*Chart Weighted Average Based on Mid City of Carrollton 2005 Civil Service Salary Survey
Fire Chief
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max Weighted Avg 13 $10,600 $5,397 $10,204 $12,222 Carrollton 1 $9,871 $5,982 $8,972 $11,963 Relationship to Survey Data -7% 10% -14% -2% City of Carrollton 2005 Civil Service Salary Survey
POLICE OFFICER
Matching Job # of Average 143 Participant Title FLSA Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max
Arlington Police Officer N 413 $4,400 $3,361 $4,046 $4,731 Allen Police Officer N 48 $4,041 $3,495 $4,015 $4,612 Dallas Police Officer N 972 $4,253 $3,474 $4,302 $5,131 * Denton Police Officer N 96 $4,399 $3,635 $4,173 $4,711 Farmers Branch Police Officer N 45 $3,653 $4,087 $4,521 * Forth Worth Police Officer N 966 $4,279 $3,427 $4,245 $5,063 Frisco Police Officer N 66 $4,084 $3,690 $4,227 $4,764 * Garland Police Officer N 246 $4,479 $3,592 $4,092 $4,592 * Grand Prairie Police Officer N 168 $4,512 $3,440 $4,277 $4,830 * Irving Police Officer N 242 $4,552 $3,405 $4,139 $4,791 Lewisville Police Officer N 102 $3,942 $3,251 $3,782 $4,313 * Mesquite Police Officer N 206 $4,591 $3,757 $4,276 $4,795 Mckinney Police Officer N 69 $4,213 $3,200 $3,680 $4,480 * Plano Police Officer N 245 $5,052 $4,073 $4,541 $5,097 Richardson Police Officer N 104 $4,694 $3,713 $4,345 $4,977 3988 $4,392 $3,544 $4,148 $4,761
* Carrollton Police Officer N 119 $4,444 $3,566 $4,128 $4,555 Weighted AVG $4,337 $3,546 $4,158 $4,770 2% 1% -1% -5%
City Ranking $6,000 Average Ranked Salary Salaries $5,000 Plano $5,052 1 Richardson $4,694 2 $4,000 Mesquite $4,591 3 Irving $4,552 4 Grand Prairie $4,512 5 $3,000 Garland $4,479 6 Carrollton $4,444 7 Arlington $4,400 8 $2,000 Denton $4,399 9 Fort Worth $4,279 10 Dallas $4,253 11 $1,000 McKinney $4,213 12 Frisco $4,084 13
$0 Allen $4,041 14 Lewisville $3,942 15 Allen Dallas Frisco Irving Plano Denton Garland Farmers Branch No Match Arlington Lewisville Mesquite Mckinney Carrollton Forth Worth Richardson Grand Prairie Farmers Branch Average Salary Weighted Average *Chart Weighted Average Based on Mid City of Carrollton 2005 Civil Service Salary Survey
POLICE SERGEANT
Matching Job # of Average 143 Participant Title FLSA Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max
Arlington Police Sergeant N 76 $5,316 $4,909 $5,161 $5,413 Allen Police Sergeant N 13 $5,007 $4,331 $4,975 $5,715 Dallas Police Sergeant N 392 $5,910 $4,103 $5,149 $6,195 * Denton Police Sergeant N 15 $5,368 $5,368 $5,368 $5,368 Farmers Branch Police Sergeant N 3 $5,147 $4,996 $5,109 $5,222 * Forth Worth Police Sergeant N 130 $5,860 $5,067 $5,613 $6,159 Frisco Police Sergeant N 13 $5,409 $4,723 $5,418 $6,099 * Garland No Match * Grand Prairie Police Sergeant N 22 $5,590 $5,125 $5,381 $5,650 * Irving Police Sergeant N 40 $5,657 $4,926 $5,431 $5,703 Lewisville Police Sergeant N 12 $5,019 $4,864 $4,986 $5,108 * Mesquite Police Sergeant N 25 $5,733 $5,733 $5,733 $5,733 Mckinney Police Sergeant N 11 $4,963 $4,286 $4,928 $5,999 * Plano Police Sergeant N 33 $6,002 $5,786 $5,897 $6,009 Richardson Sergeant-Police N 14 $5,728 $5,214 $5,555 $5,896 799 $5,479 $4,959 $5,336 $5,734
* Carrollton Police Sergeant N 18 $5,480 $5,266 $5,477 $5,642 Weighted AVG $5,757 $4,973 $5,358 $5,740 -5% 6% 2% -2%
City Ranking $7,000
Average Ranked $6,000 Salary Salaries
Plano $6,002 1 $5,000 Dallas $5,910 2 Fort Worth $5,860 3 $4,000 Mesquite $5,733 4 Richardson $5,728 5 Irving $5,657 6 $3,000 Grand Prairie $5,590 7 Carrollton $5,480 8 $2,000 Frisco $5,409 9 Denton $5,368 10 Arlington $5,316 11 $1,000 Farmers Branch $5,147 12 Lewisville $5,019 13 $0 Allen $5,007 14
Allen McKinney $4,963 15 Dallas Frisco Irving Plano Denton Garland Arlington Lewisville Mesquite Mckinney Carrollton Forth Worth Richardson Garland No Match Grand Prairie Farmers Branch
Average Salary Weighted Average
*Chart Weighted Average Based on Mid City of Carrollton 2005 Civil Service Salary Survey
POLICE LIEUTENANT
Matching Job # of Average 143 Participant Title FLSA Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max
Arlington Police Lieutenant N 20 $6,120 $5,899 $6,046 $6,194 Allen Police Lieutenant N 1 $5,691 $4,923 $5,655 $6,495 Dallas Police Lieutenant N 93 $6,648 $4,502 $5,644 $6,786 * Denton Police Lieutenant N 7 $5,053 $6,018 $6,018 $6,018 Farmers Branch Police Lieutenant N 8 $5,915 $5,477 $5,715 $5,977 * Forth Worth Police Lieutenant N 46 $6,617 $5,588 $6,190 $6,791 Frisco Police Lieutenant N 2 $6,701 $5,754 $6,592 $7,430 * Garland Police Supervisor N 32 $6,084 $5,796 $5,940 $6,084 * Grand Prairie Police Lieutenant N 7 $6,463 $5,941 $6,238 $6,550 * Irving Police Lieutenant N 17 $6,443 $5,876 $6,170 $6,478 Lewisville Police Lieutenant N 3 $5,668 $5,575 $5,715 $5,854 * Mesquite Police Lieutenant N 8 $6,558 $6,558 $6,558 $6,558 Mckinney Police Lieutenant N 2 $5,823 $5,052 $5,810 $7,073 * Plano Police Lieutenant N 11 $6,847 $6,460 $6,653 $6,847 Richardson Lieutenant- Police E 4 $6,495 $6,106 $6,422 $6,739 261 $6,208 $5,702 $6,091 $6,525
* Carrollton Police Lieutenant E 8 $6,526 $6,262 $6,451 $6,645 Weighted AVG $6,432 $5,711 $6,116 $6,537 1% 9% 5% 2%
$8,000 City Ranking
$7,000 Average Ranked Salary Salaries
$6,000 Plano $6,847 1 Frisco $6,701 2 $5,000 Dallas $6,648 3 Fort Worth $6,617 4
$4,000 Mesquite $6,558 5 Carrollton $6,526 6 Richardson $6,495 7 $3,000 Grand Prairie $6,463 8 Irving $6,443 9 $2,000 Arlington $6,120 10 Garland $6,084 11
$1,000 Farmers Branch $5,915 12 McKinney $5,823 13 Allen $5,691 14 $0 Lewisville $5,668 15
Allen Dallas Frisco Irving Plano Denton $5,053 16 Denton Garland Arlington Lewisville Mesquite Mckinney Carrollton Forth Worth Richardson Grand Prairie Farmers Branch
Average Salary Weighted Average *Chart Weighted Average Based on Mid City of Carrollton 2005 Civil Service Salary Survey
ASSISTANT POLICE CHIEF
Matching Job # of Average 143 Participant Title FLSA Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max
Arlington Assistant Police Chief E 2 $8,572 $7,078 $8,847 $9,289 Allen Assistant Police Chief E 1 $7,705 $6,621 $7,757 $8,736 Dallas Police Assistant Chief E 5 $9,223 $5,475 $7,662 $9,850 * Denton Assistant Police Chief E $6,748 $7,498 $8,998 Farmers Branch Deputy Police Chief E 2 $6,428 $6,290 $6,565 $6,860 * Fort Worth No Match Frisco Assistant Police Chief N 1 $9,427 $6,734 $8,080 $9,427 * Garland Assistant Police Chief N 4 $8,089 $7,890 $8,089 $8,289 * Grand Prairie No Match * Irving Assistant Chief Police E 3 $8,651 $7,473 $8,239 $8,651 Lewisville Assistant Police Chief E 2 $7,681 $7,493 $7,681 $7,868 * Mesquite Assistant Police Chief E 2 $9,032 $9,032 $9,032 $9,032 McKinney Assistant Police Chief E 1 $6,345 $6,202 $7,132 $8,683 * Plano Police Assistant Chief E 1 $9,328 $8,386 $8,845 $9,328 Richardson No Match E 2 $8,650 $8,650 $8,650 $8,650 26 $8,261 $7,236 $8,006 $8,743
* Carrollton Assistant Police Chief E 3 $8,295 $7,894 $8,131 $8,376 Weighted AVG $8,383 $7,325 $8,079 $8,779 -1% 7% 1% -5%
$10,000 City Ranking $9,000 Average Ranked $8,000 Salary Salaries
$7,000 Frisco $9,427 1 Plano $9,328 2 $6,000 Dallas $9,223 3 Mesquite $9,032 4 $5,000 Irving $8,651 5 Richardson $8,650 6 $4,000 Arlington $8,572 7 Carrollton $8,295 8 $3,000 Garland $8,089 9 Allen $7,705 10 $2,000 Lewisville $7,681 11 Farmers Branch $6,428 12 $1,000 McKinney $6,345 13 Grand Prairie No Match $0 Fort Worth No Match
Allen Dallas Frisco Irving Plano Denton No Match Denton Garland Arlington Lewisville Mesquite McKinney Carrollton Fort Worth Richardson Grand Prairie Farmers Branch
Average Salary Weighted Average
*Chart Weighted Average Based on Mid City of Carrollton 2005 Civil Service Salary Survey
Police Chief
# of Actual Avg Incumbents Salary Min Mid Max Weighted Avg 12 $10,268 $5,905 $9,603 $11,368 Carrollton 1 $10,209 $5,982 $8,972 $11,963 Relationship to Survey Data -1% 1% -7% 5%
CC MEETING: July 19, 2005
DATE: July 13, 2005
TO: Leonard Martin, City Manager
FROM: Ravi Shah, Interim Fleet Manager Vince Priolo, Purchasing Manager
SUBJECT: APRROVAL FOR THE PURCHASE OF LIGHT-BARS
BACKGROUND: Fleet Services has assumed the responsibility of installing light-bars and accessories on all public safety city vehicles that was formerly done by ACS, Inc. The old light bars are being replaced with newer low amperage, low maintenance bars. Due to the staggered vehicle and equipment purchases through out this year, and the inability to use the old bars, Fleet Services is requesting approval to purchase these additional accessories from Emergency Vehicle Equipment. The items to be purchased include light-bars, sirens, consoles, switch boxes, arrow sticks, and miscellaneous lights.
Emergency Vehicle Equipment has a bid award from Tarrant County for these products, and we would like to purchase these items using our existing interlocal agreement with Tarrant County. All items have been bid and meet the state law requirements for sealed bids.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The light-bars and accessories to be purchased were approved from budgeted funds from the cost center and amount as listed below:
COST CENTER LINE ITEM BUDGET AMOUNT
FLEET 711-FLE-0680-4201 $ 30,000.00 FLEET 711-FLE-0680-3710 7,000.00 $ 37,000.00
STAFF RECOMMENDATION/ACTION DESIRED: Staff recommends the approval to purchase light-bar and accessories over the course of the year from Emergency Vehicle Equipment in an amount not to exceed $37,000. This approval is based on a bid award to the vendor from Tarrant County and our existing interlocal agreement with them.
ATTACHMENTS: None
CC MEETING JULY 19. 2005
DATE: July 12, 2005
TO: Leonard Martin, City Manager
FROM: Vince Priolo, Purchasing Manager
SUBJ.: BID AWARD FOR WATER & SEWER SUPPLY
BACKGROUND: The materials to be purchased from this price agreement will be used for construction repairs and maintenance of all water/sewer lines in the City.
Bids were advertised and received from six vendors of which one submitted a no bid and five responded.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The materials on Bid # 05-042 will be purchased from budgeted funds for the business units and amounts as listed below.
COST CENTER LINE ITEM BUDGET AMOUNT
Public Works 2316 - R/M – Water & Sewer $ 350,000.00
RECOMMENDATION/ACTION DESIRED: Staff recommends that the low bids meeting all specifications be awarded to Metrovalve as a primary vendor and Municipal Waterworks as a secondary vendor for an amount not to exceed $350,000.00.
NOTE: Attached is a tabulation sheet showing bids by category. Metrovalve and Municipal Waterworks are the only vendors that presented a nearly complete bid for all items, and staff recommends an award based on total instead of an award by category. Since Public Works does not warehouse utility supplies, a single source of supply is more important now than ever before. Using the supplier as our warehouse allows us to minimize overhead costs and ensures price stability. We depend on the single source of supply to have the materials when needed. It is on this basis that selecting the low bidder by category is undesirable and considered to be counterproductive.
Staff requests Metrovalve as the primary vendor because of their geographical proximity to Carrollton versus Municipal Waterworks. Metrovalve is in Dallas and Municipal Waterworks is located in Royse City, and the proximity of Metrovalve is important in an emergency situation. Staff will purchase supplies from the most cost effective vendor in normal situations.
ATTACHMENTS: Tabulation Sheet
05-042 Water and Sewer Supply Tabulation Sheet
Metro Valve & Ferguson Municipal Water Pipe Waterworks Works Supply D and W Supply Techline Inc. Category 1 $ 2,874.35 No Bid $ 2,822.95 $ 2,861.50 $ 2,888.25 Category 2 $ 952.25 $ 1,051.00 $ 627.00 $ 683.50 $ 1,103.30 Category 3 $ 9,357.26 $ 9,963.00 $ 7,680.00 $ 8,033.20 $ 11,314.50 Category 4 $ 5,049.15 $ 6,294.50 $ 4,873.10 $ 4,610.45 $ 4,964.60 Category 5 $ 21,175.60 $ 19,509.50 $ 18,352.00 $ 22,054.15 $ 16,591.20 Category 6 $ 101,666.55 $ 85,654.25 $ 100,780.70 $ 139,228.00 $ 190,050.85 Category 7 $ 4,723.80 $ 4,461.00 $ 4,610.45 $ 4,956.00 $ 5,283.30 Category 8 $ 24,509.95 $ 26,838.50 $ 22,086.20 $ 14,948.00 $ 19,109.90 Category 9 $ 119,718.70 $ 141,254.62 $ 121,401.70 NO BID NO BID Category 10 $ 88,222.49 $ 15,265.00 $ 71,124.75 $ 78,121.50 $ 76,484.91 Category 11 $ 71,825.19 NO BID $ 83,669.50 $ 81,844.00 $ 45,861.91 Category 12 $ 99,781.95 $ 104,455.00 $ 92,290.00 $ 581,974.40 $ 76,000.45 Category 13 $ 168,551.00 $ 173,760.00 $ 183,730.00 $ 169,836.00 $ 168,820.00 Category 14 $ 11,656.00 NO BID $ 11,110.00 $ 13,351.00 $ 17,687.00 Category 15 $ 5,466.19 $ 5,796.70 $ 5,974.31 $ 5,568.40 $ 3,211.74 Category 16 $ 2,173.40 NO BID $ 1,953.20 $ 2,242.10 NO BID TOTAL $ 737,703.83 $ 594,303.07 $ 733,085.86 $ 1,130,312.20 $ 639,371.91 NOTE: Metro & Municipal Waterworks excluded 3 items in Category #16 that are non-vital to the bid award. All other vendors excluded many more items or simply "NO BID" on some categories. No bid – JPK Supply
CC MEETING: July 19, 2005
DATE: July 19, 2005 TO: Leonard Martin, City Manager FROM: Cesar J. Molina Jr., P.E., Director of Engineering SUBJECT: FURNEAUX CREEK – SEGMENT 3 TRAIL DESIGN
This agenda item is to authorize the City Manager to sign a professional services contract for the design of a 10’ wide trail generally along Furneaux Creek from Frankford Road to Josey Lane.
BACKGROUND: In March 2002, the city authorized a design contract for erosion control improvements on the Furneaux Creek channel between McCoy Road and Josey Lane (near Woodlake) and including Tributary 6E1. In November 2003, City Council awarded a contract to construct the erosion control improvements on Segment 2 of Furneaux Creek between McCoy Road and Frankford Road and including Tributary 6E1. This section is currently under construction and is scheduled for completion later this summer. In May 2004, the voters approved funds for the construction of a citywide trail system. With that approval, staff modified the Furneaux Creek construction plans to include the first segment of the citywide trail system.
The next scheduled phase of Furneaux Creek erosion control improvement is Segment 3 between Frankford Road and Josey Lane (near Woodlake). In May 2005, students of the Ted Polk Middle School GIS Club in Carrollton made a presentation for a proposed walking trail and improvements along Furneaux Creek between Frankford Road and Josey Lane as part of a club project. Upon review of staff, it was determined that many elements of the students’ proposal were not only compatible with the City’s Trail Master Plan but were feasible within the current capital improvement plan.
In an effort to further implement the City’s trail system while recognizing the creative minds of Carrollton’s students, City staff recommends advancing design of the trail along Segment 3 utilizing the basic concepts and appropriate elements presented by the Ted Polk Middle School GIS Club.
IMPACT ON COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY: This project will contribute to community sustainability by sustaining quality of life. Improvements to the trail system will offer facilities for non-motorized travel and improve the appearance of the area which should promote the economic viability of the community.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: BW2 Engineers, Inc. has submitted a proposal to the City of Carrollton to perform the supplementary engineering design services for the trail project for an amount not to exceed $36,500.00. Funding is available for the trail design in Fund 465-CAP-05H6, Trail System Projects.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION/ACTION DESIRED: Staff recommends authorizing the City Manager to approve a professional services agreement with BW2 Engineers, Inc. for the design and plan preparation of a 10’ wide trail generally along Furneaux Creek from Frankford Road to Josey Lane (near Woodlake) in the amount not to exceed $36,500.00.
ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Location Map
CC MEETING DATE: July 19, 2005
DATE: July 7, 2005
TO: Leonard Martin, City Manager
FROM: Cesar J. Molina, Jr., P.E., Director of Engineering
SUBJECT: STREET REPLACEMENTS 04-2P, CHANGE ORDER NO. 1
This agenda item amends the contract for construction services to add several items to the Street Replacements 04-2P project which includes Statler from Arcadia to Scott Mill, Haymeadow from Arcadia to Southern Oaks, Woodhaven from Southern Oaks to Haymeadow, Woodhaven Court and Wildrose from Southern Oaks to the cul-de-sac.
BACKGROUND: An initial budget of $1,500,000 was established for the project. The City Council awarded a contract to Santos Construction on October 5, 2004 in an amount not to exceed $1,210,696.50. Change Order No. 1 adds additional water service adjustments, tree removals and retaining wall quantities to the work. Additional water service adjustments are required due to the shallow depth at which they were originally installed and from the amount the pavement had dropped since first constructed. Additional tree removals were performed at residents’ requests which will only prolong the life of the pavement. Additional retaining walls were added due to both a miscalculation in the bid quantity and what was required to meet existing elevations.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Funding for the additional construction work in the amount of $57,925.00 is available in Fund 455-CAP-04A7 (Neighborhood Partnership Tax Projects).
RECOMMENDATIONS/ACTION DESIRED Staff recommends authorizing the city manager to execute Change Order No. 1 that will increase the construction contract in an amount not to exceed $57,925.00 revising the contract amount to $1,268,621.50.
ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Location Map LOCATION MAP
PROJECT LOCATION
Haymeadow, Statler, Woodhaven, Woodhaven Ct. and Wildrose Street Replacement Project 04-2P ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
CC MEETING: July 19, 2005
DATE: July 14, 2005
TO: Leonard Martin, City Manager
FROM: Beth Little Bormann, ACM
SUBJECT: INDIAN CREEK GOLF COURSE – MANAGEMENT SERVICES AGREEMENT ADDENDUM REGARDING GOLF CART LEASE
BACKGROUND: The city and Evergreen Alliance Golf Limited (EAGL) entered into an agreement for management services for Indian Creek Golf Course on May 1, 2005. One of the provisions in the current agreement requires the city to provide the golf cart fleet. EAGL reimburses the city through a monthly golf cart lease payment. EAGL would like to replace the existing cart fleet in conjunction with the opening of the Lakes Course greens/tees resurfacing and increase the size from 130 to 160 carts. The new carts would be equipped with GPS (global positioning system) that provides additional services to guests such as scoring, graphic display of hole and yardage layouts, distance from ball to pin, and it also allows them to place advance restaurant orders. Additionally, GPS provides a valuable management tool for the Pro Shop staff to track carts on the courses and send messages about weather, pace of play or other important updates. All of these features contribute to improved pace of play and GPS adds to the overall cart revenue stream.
EAGL is proposing that they be responsible for providing the cart fleet at Indian Creek. This benefits the city by allowing us to get out of the cart business and the related administrative tracking, capital investment, ownership risks, etc. EAGL continues to be responsible for providing cart maintenance and they would replace carts with the same product that they have at their other courses which streamlines and improves their maintenance capabilities. A new cart fleet could be in place by September 5, 2005. The city will be able to sell the existing cart fleet for fair market value (an interested buyer has been identified) and place the proceeds in the golf fund.
EAGL is seeking a degree of protection for their capital investment, should the agreement be terminated prior to its term (September 30, 2005). The amendment provides an early termination provision to EAGL that enables them to receive a prorated amount of their capital investment. This early termination provision is similar to the one that is included in the solid waste agreement between the city and Allied Waste.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The prorated termination provision amounts through September 30, 2009 are included in Exhibit M (attached). The city will be able to sell the existing cart fleet for fair market value and place the proceeds in the golf fund. An interested buyer has been identified. The current market value estimate received for the sale of the existing golf cart fleet of 130 carts is $1250 per cart for a total amount of $162,500.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION/ACTION DESIRED: Staff recommends that City Council authorize the City Manager to execute the amendment to the Management Services Agreement with Evergreen Alliance Golf Limited (EAGL).
ATTACHMENTS: First Addendum to Management Services Agreement Exhibit M FIRST AMENDMENT TO CARROLLTON MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE (INDIAN CREEK) AND PRO SHOP AND CLUBHOUSE INCLUDING COURSE MAINTENANCE, MANAGEMENT SERVICES AGREEMENT (“MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT”)
For and in consideration of the covenants and agreements contained herein, and in order to obtain the mutual benefits provided herein, this First Amendment is made and entered by and between the CITY OF CARROLLTON, TEXAS, a home-rule municipality (hereinafter referred to as the “City”) and Evergreen Alliance Golf Limited, L. P., (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Contractor”).
Recitals
1. The City and Contractor entered into the Management Agreement effective May 1, 2005.
2. The City and Contractor desire to modify the terms of the Management Agreement pursuant to the terms of this First Amendment.
Agreement
1. Article VII (A) (1) of the Management Agreement currently reads:
(1) Golf Carts, Clubhouse Furniture, Kitchen, and Audio-Visual Equipment. City shall lease to Contractor the golf carts, furniture, kitchen and audio-visual equipment listed in Exhibit “H”. Contractor has the right to inspect the equipment on or before effective lease date and exclude those items deemed unsatisfactory. Contractor shall be responsible for any damages and loss of any equipment caused by the negligent or intentional acts or omissions of Contractor, his subcontractors, employees, or invitees. The lease would then be modified accordingly. Contractor and City both understand that the lease payments may be modified, by mutual consent, to reflect costs of adding additional equipment, replacing existing equipment, or upgrading existing equipment.
This paragraph will be modified to remove the words “golf carts” from each place where they appear in this provision. Exhibit “H” is modified to remove all golf carts listed thereon.
2. The following provision will be added to the Management Agreement:
Article VII (D) Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, Contractor agrees to enter into a golf cart lease (“Golf Cart Lease”) with a third party provider for the benefit of Indian Creek Golf Course.
3. The following provision will be added to the Management Agreement:
Article X (F) Termination Fee. In the event of Termination of this Agreement pursuant to this Article X or any other provision of this agreement, City shall pay as the sole amount due to Contractor in connection with the work (1) all sums due to Contractor pursuant to the terms of this Agreement and (2) reasonable cost of termination. Reasonable costs of termination shall be that amount owing pursuant to the chart set forth on Exhibit M. The Termination Fee will be due and payable within thirty (30) days of termination, the same terms as set forth in Article X (B).
This Amendment shall be binding upon the parties hereto, their successors, heirs, personal representatives and assigns.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executes this agreement on the dates indicated below.
THE CITY OF CARROLLTON, TEXAS Contractor:
EVERGREEN ALLIANCE GOLF LIMITED, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership
By: EAGL GP, L.L.C., a Delaware Limited Liability Company, its General Partner
______By: Leonard Martin By: Joe R. Munsch City Manager
Date:______Date:______
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______R. Clayton Hutchins, City Attorney
Date:______
ATTEST:
______By: Ashley D. Mitchell City Secretary
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
______By: Beth Little Bormann Assistant City Manager
EXHIBIT M
Termination Date Termination Fee
09/01/05 - 10/01/05 135,715.27 11/01/05 133,869.91 12/01/05 132,013.29 2005
01/01/06 130,145.35 02/01/06 128,266.02 03/01/06 126,375.22 04/01/06 124,472.89 05/01/06 122,558.95 06/01/06 120,633.34 07/01/06 118,695.98 08/01/06 116,746.80 09/01/06 114,785.73 10/01/06 112,812.71 11/01/06 110,827.64 12/01/06 108,830.47 2006
01/01/07 106,821.11 02/01/07 104,799.50 03/01/07 102,765.56 04/01/07 100,719.20 05/01/07 98,660.37 06/01/07 96,588.98 07/01/07 94,504.95 08/01/07 92,408.21 09/01/07 90,298.68 10/01/07 88,176.28 11/01/07 86,040.93 12/01/07 83,892.56 2007
01/01/08 81,731.08 02/01/08 79,556.42 03/01/08 77,368.49 04/01/08 75,167.22 05/01/08 72,952.51 06/01/08 70,724.30 07/01/08 68,482.50 08/01/08 66,227.02 09/01/08 63,957.78 10/01/08 61,674.70 11/01/08 59,377.70 12/01/08 57,066.68 2008
01/01/09 54,741.57 02/01/09 52,402.27 03/01/09 50,048.70 04/01/09 47,680.78 05/01/09 45,298.41 06/01/09 42,901.51 07/01/09 40,489.99 08/01/09 38,063.75 09/01/09 35,622.72 09/30/09 (0.00) 2009
CASE NO. 07-05SUP3 Abraham Dry Cleaning Supply
Proposed lease space for Abraham Dry Cleaner Supply.
G:\planning\Case Reports\2005\SUP\07-05SUP3 Abraham Dry Clean Supply.doc Page 7
CASE NO. 07-05SUP4 North American Plastics
Proposed lease space for North American Plastics.
G:\planning\Case Reports\2005\SUP\07-05SUP4 North American Plastics.doc Page 7