HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_GTAB_02.13.2015Notice of Meeting for the
Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board and the Governing Body
of the City of Georgetown
February 13, 2015 at 10:00 AM
at 300-1 Industrial Ave, Georgetown Texas 78626
The City of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
If you require assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the
ADA, reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please
contact the City at least four (4) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or City
Hall at 113 East 8th Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711.
Regular Session
(This Regular Session may, at any time, be recessed to convene an Executive Session for any purpose
authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code 551.)
A Call to Order
The Board may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to convene in Executive Session at the
request of the Chair, a Board Member, the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, General
Manager of Utilities, City Council Member, or legal counsel for any purpose authorized by the
Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code Chapter 551, and are subject to action in the
Regular Session that follows.
B Introduction of Visitors
C Industry/CAMPO/TXDOT Updates
D Discussion regarding the Project Progress Reports and Time Lines. – Bill Dryden, P.E.,
Transportation Engineer, Mark Miller, Transportation Services Manager, Nat Waggoner, PMP®,
Transportation Analyst and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director.
E Discussion regarding the Airport Project Progress Report and time lines. – Russ Volk, Airport
Manager and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director
Legislative Regular Agenda
F Review and possible action to approve the minutes from the Regular GTAB Board meeting held
on January 9, 2015. - Jana Kern – GTAB Board Liaison
G Consideration and possible recommendation for the award of the annual bid for Emulsion oil used
in road construction to Ergon Asphalt & Emulsion, Inc. of Austin, Texas ordered on an as needed
basis in the estimated amount of $136,064.15. - Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation
Services Director and Mark Miller, Transportation Services Manager.
H Consideration and possible recommendation on awarding a bid to Sierra Demolition of Round
Rock, Texas in the amount of $57,300.00 for demolition of structures purchased as part of the
Smith Branch buyouts. -- Wesley Wright, P.E., Systems Engineering Director
I Public hearing on an ordinance and possible recommendation to City Council regarding the
updated Overall Transportation Plan to City Council.- Nat Waggoner, Transportation Analyst,
PMP®, Edward G. Polasek, A.I.C.P, Director, Transportation Services.
Adjournment
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
I, Jessica Brettle, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice
of Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public
at all times, on the ______ day of __________________, 2015, at __________, and remained so
posted for at least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
____________________________________
Jessica Brettle, City Secretary
City of Georgetown, Texas
Transportation Advisory Board
February 13, 2015
SUBJECT:
Discussion regarding the Project Progress Reports and Time Lines. – Bill Dryden, P.E.,
Transportation Engineer, Mark Miller, Transportation Services Manager, Nat Waggoner, PMP®,
Transportation Analyst and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director.
ITEM SUMMARY:
GTAB Projects
Austin Avenue Bridge Evaluation and Repairs
FM 971 Realignment at Austin Avenue
FM 971 Improvements in San Gabriel Park
FM 1460 Improvements Project
OTP Update
Sidewalk Master Plan
Southwest Bypass Project (TIP #14C)
Transit Study as Requested by City Council
Transportation Services Operations – CIP Maintenance
GTEC Projects
Project Update and Status Report
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None
SUBMITTED BY:
Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
GTAB Project Progress Reports Exhibit
GTEC Project Status Report Exhibit
Austin Avenue – Bridge Evaluations
(North and South San Gabriel Rivers)
Project No. TBD TIP Project No. N/A
February 2015
Unchanged
Project Description Evaluate the repairs necessary to restore full structural capacity to the Austin Avenue
bridges over the North and South San Gabriel Rivers. The process will involve several
phases – I) determination of testing needed, II) structural testing, analyses and
evaluation of test data to determine/recommend corrective measures and a project
budget, III) develop construction plans, specifications and contract documents,
estimates of probable construction costs and, last, IV) construction administration.
Purpose To extend the structural life of the two bridge and provide long‐term vehicular
capacity and pedestrian safety along Austin Avenue.
Project Manager Bill Dryden, P.E.
Engineer Aguirre & Fields, LP
Element Status / Issues
Design Staff met with Engineer and discussed potential courses of action. There are four basic
paths to consider: Do Nothing. Short Term Temporary Fix. Medium Term Fix. Replace
Structure.
Engineer has developed 2 potential conceptual alignments for the proposed
reconstruction of the bridge.
Surveying TBD
Environmental TBD during Phase II
Rights of Way Prop. ROW from 3rd Street to N. of 2nd; Exist. ROW from N. of 2nd to Morrow Street.
Utility Reloc’ns TBD (future)
Construction TBD
Other Issues Candidate project for May 2015 Bond Program election;
Project submitted for CAMPO funding;
Project eligible for TxDOT Off‐System Bridge Replacement Program.
FM 971 at Austin Avenue
Realignment Intersection Improvements
Project No. 1BZ TIP No. QQ1
February 2015
Unchanged
Project Description Design and preparation of final plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E) for the widening
and realignment of FM 971 at Austin Avenue, eastward to Gann Street.
Purpose To provide a new alignment consistent with the alignment of the proposed Northwest
Boulevard Bridge over IH 35; to allow a feasible, alternate route from the west side of I 35 to
Austin Avenue, to Georgetown High School, to San Gabriel Park and a more direct route to
SH 130.
Project Managers Bill Dryden, P.E.
Engineer Klotz Associates, Inc.
Element Status / Issues
Design Preliminary Engineering complete;
Engineer working on 60% design submittal
Environmental/
Archeological
10/2015
Rights of Way Complete
Utility Relocations TBD
Construction 10/2016
Other Issues Working with TxDOT to develop an Advance Funding Agreement for plans review
and construction administration.
FM 971 at Austin Avenue
Improvements in San Gabriel Park
Project No. 1BZ TIP No. QQ1
February 2015
Project Description Design of final plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E) for the moving of all park
amenities from the new FM 971 ROW.
Purpose To clear the ROW of park amenities and allow TxDOT review of the PS&E.
Project Managers Bill Dryden, P.E.
Engineer Klotz Associates, Inc.
Element Status / Issues
Design Complete
Environmental/
Archeological
N/A
Rights of Way Complete
Utility Relocations Complete
Construction Work Complete; awaiting final invoice from Contractor’s Surety.
Other Issues See Construction, above.
FM 1460
Quail Valley Drive to University Drive
Project No. 5RB TIP No. EEa, EEb & EEc
February 2015
Project Description Design and preparation of plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E) for the widening and
reconstruction of FM 1460. Project will include review and update to existing Schematic,
Right‐of‐Way Map and Environmental Document and completion of the PS&E for the
remaining existing roadway.
Purpose To keep the currently approved environmental documents active; purchase ROW, effect
utility relocations/clearance and to provide on‐the‐shelf PS&E for TxDOT letting not later
than August 2013, pending available construction funding.
Project Managers Ed Polasek, AICP and Bill Dryden, P.E.
Engineer Brown and Gay Engineers, Inc.
Element Status / Issues
Design Complete
Environmental/
Archeological
Complete
Rights of Way As of October 16th, the City has obtained Possession and
Use Agreements or have closings planned for all the
remaining FM 1460 parcels.
Acquired: 34
Pending: 0
Condemnation: 2
Total: 36
Utility Relocations Ongoing as ROW is being acquired.
Construction Bid opened August 2014
Construction scheduled to commence February 2015.
Other Issues None Pending
Overall Transportation Plan Update
February 2015
Project Description The updated OTP is a continuation of the effort that the City completed in 2004
with the adoption of the initial OTP. That document provided an analysis of
existing conditions and travel characteristics, a refined area‐wide travel demand
model, review of the City’s roadway functional classification system and a revised
Thoroughfare Plan.
Project Managers Ed Polasek, AICP, Bill Dryden, P.E., Nat Waggoner, PMP® and Jordan Maddox,
AICP
Engineer Klotz Associates, Inc.
Element Status / Issues
Key
Accomplishments
DRAFT OTP has been:
Presented to GTAB at its January 9th meeting.
Presented at Council Workshop on January 13th.
Presented to P&Z for review and comments January 20th.
Upcoming Tasks Staff:
• Will compile all comments and present the Final DRAFT OTP to GTAB
February 13th for Public Hearing and recommendation to Council.
• Will present the Final DRAFT OTP to Council February 24th for Public
Hearing and 1st Reading of Ordinance adopting the OTP.
• Will present 2nd Reading of Ordinance adopting the OTP March 10th.
Issues Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) has not yet adopted
the 2040 Regional Transportation Plan nor the 2010 Travel Demand Model
supporting that plan. When adopted in May 2015, the 2040 plan and model will
provide key data which will allow supporting jurisdictions the opportunity to
update their transportation plans. Georgetown transportation planning efforts
will benefit from updated modeling data and should pursue funding to update the
2012 data currently informing the OTP.
Sidewalk Master Plan and Public Facility Access Audit
February 2015
Purpose The purpose of the City of Georgetown Sidewalk Study and Public Facility Access
Audit is to inventory existing public infrastructure within the City of Georgetown
City Limits, identify design and compliance deficiencies, evaluate future program
requirements, and develop a long term implementation plan.
Project Manager Nat Waggoner, PMP®
Engineer HDR, Inc.
Task Status / Issues
Initiation ‐ Task 1.3 – Project Kick Off Meeting completed May 15, 2014.
Planning ‐ Task 6.2 – Public Meetings (Adoption)
Execution ‐ See below
Task Name Start End
ADA Reporting Criteria for Sidewalk Analysis May‐14 Jun‐14
Comprehensive Review of Existing Studies, Plans, and Reports May‐14 Jun‐14
Self‐Assessment Survey of Downtown District May‐14 Jul‐14
Data Collection and Field Inventory Jun‐14 Aug‐14
City Facilities Survey Jul‐14 Sep‐14
Sidewalk Implementation Plan and Project Prioritization May‐14 Oct‐14
Parks and Amenities Survey Nov‐14 Feb‐14 Ongoing
Government and Public Stakeholder Meetings May‐14 Jan‐15 Ongoing
Public Meetings and Hearings Periodic thru Mar‐15 Ongoing
ADA Transition Plan Update to Council Targeting Apr‐15
Other Notes ADA
NOV –Transition Plan amendment planning and audit by Altura Solutions
FEB –RAS review & recommended revisions complete
MAR –Staff input complete
APR –Boards, Commissions and Council review
MAY –Adoption
Project Website
Launched July 15, 2014
Open House #2
Completed, public input will conclude February 25th.
Public Hearing and 1st Reading
February 24, 2015
10 Yr. Recommended Implementation Strategy Funding Needed
Priority 1 Projects $10,300,000
Operations and Maintenance $500K Annually
Reserve Funding TBD
Southwest Bypass Project
(RM 2243 to IH 35)
Project No. 1CA Project No. 14c
February 2015
Unchanged
Project Description Develop a Design Schematic for the Southwest Bypass from Leander Road (RM 2243) to IH
35 in the ultimate configuration and Construction Plans, Specifications and Estimate (PS&E)
for construction of approximately 1.5 miles of interim 2‐lane roadway from Leander Road
(RM 2243) to its intersection with the existing Inner Loop underpass at IH 35. The portion
from Leander Road to the east property line of Texas Crushed Stone is a GTAB Project; from
the east line to the existing Inner Loop underpass at IH 35 is being funded by GTEC.
Purpose To extend an interim portion of the SH 29 Bypass, filling in between Leander Road (RM
2243) to IH 35 Southbound Frontage Road.
Project Manager Williamson County
City Contact: Ed Polasek, AICP and Bill Dryden, P.E.
Engineer HDR, Inc.
Element Status / Issues
Design Engineer is in preliminary engineering and schematic design phase of the facility.
Alignment has been presented to staff and management.
Surveying City stall met with the Surveyor to resolve a conflict in the proposed ROW to be
acquired from Texas Crushed Stone.
Environmental/
Archeological
TBD by preliminary engineering phase.
Rights of Way Conceptually established by the Industrial Agreement; will be refined through the
schematic design phase.
Negotiations ongoing for the remainder of the ROW
Utility Relocations TBD (future)
Construction This project included in the Williamson County 2013 Bond Program to construct 2
lanes of the ultimate roadway.
Other Issues None
Transit Study
as Requested by City Council
Project No. None Project No. None
February 2015
Unchanged
Project
Description
Council Motion: Discussion and possible direction to the City of Georgetownʹs Transportation
Advisory Board (GTAB) to conduct an analysis and make a recommendation to the City Council
no later than June 24, 2014 ,regarding the Cityʹs potential future participation in State and
Regional Transportation Organizations including the benefits, conditions, and justification which
would prompt the Cityʹs participation in Project Connect, Lone Star Rail and any other relevant
State and Regional Transportation Organizations that the City should be involved with ‐‐ Steve
Fought, Councilmember, District 4
Amended Motion:
1. The City Manager to determine what time and effort staff have available to conduct this type
of study over the next year. If it is not in the Transportation Division, Planning Department,
Finance Department and/or City Manager’s Office work program, as outlined in the current
draft budget, can it be adequately staffed to complete this level of work over the next year?
2. Is the challenge to research Federal, State and Regional transportation organizations or is it
transit programs? This direction to staff is assuming it is transit programs.
3. Narrow the specific analysis to programs that are actually authorized to receive Federal
formula and discretionary funding programs found within the current Federal Transit
Administration. However, that would narrow the field down to three agencies or programs.
Capital Metro, Lone Star Rail and the State of Texas through the Texas Department of
Transportation. CARTS is only a contractor to Capital Metro and provides certain 5310
transit opportunities to persons outside of the Capital Metro Service Area in our jurisdiction.
CAMPO, Project Connect, Project Connect North and My35 are simply planning programs
that include staff from Capital Metro, Lone Star Rail District, and TxDOT and
representatives from local governments.
4. The analysis should be based on how those planning programs will lead to funding through
the project delivery agencies. (Fought amended to include financial risk and benefits to the City)
5. The Council should provide the Board and staff specifics on what type of economic analysis
data will lead to an ultimate decision by the City Council.
6. Finally, some people ‘can’t see what the final project would look like’ or ‘can’t see what a
Transit Oriented Development would look like.’ Years ago, when the City was looking at
transportation options and creating a TOD ordinance, there was a field trip to perform some
on the ground research. Members of the City Council, Planning and Zoning, and staff
(GTAB was not in existence at the time) went and stayed at a TOD to see for themselves.
We should have at least one field trip during this study. Since it has been about 8 years or
so since that first and only field trip, it should be extremely informative to do it again and
see what a TOD looks like today and how the project has performed over the years.
Vote on the original motion as amended: Approved (6‐1) (Hesser opposed)
Project
Manager
Ed Polasek, AICP
Engineer TBD
Project Status Workplan Under Development
Transportation Services Operations
CIP Maintenance
February 2015
Project Description 2013/14‐2015 CIP Maintenance of roadways including, Chip seal, Cutler
Overlays, Fog seal applications and Engineering design of future rehabilitation
projects.
Purpose To provide protection and maintain an overall pavement condition index of
85%.
Project Manager Mark Miller
Engineer/Engineers KPA, Steger Bizzell, Halff Assoc.
Task Status / Issues
2nd and 6th Street
Engineering
(KPA) 2nd St. to College St. plans are complete. Advertising, bidding and
construction will coincide with Parks and Recreation VFW Field
reconstruction project in approximately June / July minimizing disruption to
baseball season and to residents. The engineer’s estimate is much greater than
the project budget. Last year’s 2nd Street funds (scheduled to roll) were
utilized on additional 9th Street rehabilitation costs. The 2nd Street project can
be bid and awarded by rolling and utilizing the funds for the 10th and 11th
Street construction scheduled for 2015. Some of the downtown merchants
have expressed concerns about the constant disruptions of the ongoing
downtown rehabilitation. Rolling the projects would give a one year break
from rehabilitation in this area.
9th Street
(Main to Rock)
(KPA) (Patin Construction) Austin to Rock portion 98% completed. A
separate electric contractor is working on the Austin Ave. to Main St. portion
placing additional underground conduit placement. Patin is scheduled to
return to this section in February when the conduit is in place. Contractor has
worked hard to accommodate businesses during shopping season and still
plans to complete project on schedule. (Before the end of April)
Chip Seal 2015 proposed to be bid May 15th and construction complete by August 30th.
Fog Seal 2015 Fog sealing will be completed in‐house. In‐house engineering is being
provided for specified streets. Engineering under way and fog sealing will be
completed prior to mid‐June or as temperature allow. Temperatures much
above 80 degrees slows dry time.
Cutler/overlay 2015 proposed Cutler Overlays Proposed to be bid on or before June 15th with
construction complete by October 1st.
Pavement
Evaluation
KPA Engineering: pavement evaluation/scoring and update of 5 year
(Complete)
Current Capital Improvement Projects TIP
No.
Project
No.
Update On Schedule/
Or Behind
Project
Budget
Project
Cost
Available Current Year
Projected
Current Year
Cost
Current Year
Available
Lakeway Drive Overpass #10 5QL Project Complete.
Complete 2,500,000 2,500,000 0 0 0
Southeast Arterial 1 (Sam Houston Avenue)#12 5QG Project Complete.
Complete 12,995,625 10,478,499 2,517,126 0 0
Wolf Ranch Parkway Extension (SW Bypass to DB
Wood Road)
#14A 5QW Engineer is completing the fencing plans, its
required environmental clearance documents
(to determine the fee for WCCF) and the
construction PS&E bidding package.
ROW has been acquired.
On Schedule
Unchanged
1,330,000 1,111,233 218,767 283,350 0 283,350
Southwest Bypass (SH29 to RR2243)#14B 5QC Engineer has completed the project PS&E, less
construction contract documents and
environmental permitting required at time of actual
construction.
ROW Acquisition process moving to
condemnation for the Weir Trust properties.
Guy/Knight property – Closing pending
Wolf property – Acquisition complete.
On Schedule
Unchanged
7,756,432 3,225,132 4,531,300 4,539,107 5,787 4,533,320
Northwest Blvd Overpass #QQ 5QX Engineer has presented the Preliminary
Engineering Report and has begun final PS&E
design efforts.
Engineer is developing ROW strip map and
In-process
Unchanged
1,136,178 1,099,076 37,102 571,178 479,588 91,590
NB Frontage Road (SS 158 to Lakeway)#QQ 5QY Staff and Engineer has met with TxDOT personnel
at both the local Area Office and District
Environmental Division.
In-process
Unchanged
613,822 613,822 0 382,822 382,822 0
ROW - 1460 #EEa
#EEb
#EEc
5RB Construction scheduled to begin in February
2015.
Utility coordination on-going as ROW is acquired.
All appraisals are complete. Final offers have been
made for all ROW parcels.
The paperwork has been filed for all parcels
requiring condemnation.
As of October 16th, the City has obtained
Possession and Use Agreements or have
closings planned within the next couple
weeks for all the remaining FM 1460
parcels.
Utility Relocation Agreements were approved by
Council at its October 28th
meeting.
On Schedule 11,788,230 5,348,470 6,439,760 6,727,539 2,315,896 4,411,643
TCS/RR Easement 5RD Project Complete.
Complete 1,500,000 1,503,148 -3,148 0 0
FM 971 / Washam 5RE Project Complete.
Complete 100,000 0 100,000 0 0
Rivery Road 5RF Project Complete.
Complete 779,000 29,000 750,000 750,000 0 750,000
Rivery Boulevard 5RM Surveying and preliminary design underway.
On Schedule
Snead Drive 5QZ PS&E is complete;
Awaiting ROW for water quality pond.
On Schedule
Unchanged
825,100 87,000 738,100 825,100 87,000 738,100
Mays Street Extension 5RI Engineering has submitted the proposed
alignment and is working on the 30%PS&E.
On Schedule
Unchanged
196,000 196,000 0 196,000 196,000 0
IH 35/ Hwy 29 Intersection 5RJ TBD 650,000 0 650,000 650,000 0 650,000
GTEC PROJECT UPDATE AND STATUS REPORT
February 2105
Project to Date Current Year Budget (13/14)
L:\Global\CIP Agenda Form\GTEC Status Report\2015\GTEC - Project Status - 2015-01.xlsx Page 1 of 2 2/4/2015
GTEC PROJECT UPDATE AND STATUS REPORT
February 2105
Current Economic Development Projects Project
Type
Update On Schedule/
Or Behind
Project
Budget
Project
Cost
Available Current Year
Budget
Current Year
Cost
Current Year
Available
Economic Development Projects 1,137,500 1,137,500 1,137,500 0 1,137,500
16,062,596 3,467,093 12,595,503
Project to Date Current Year Budget (13/14)
L:\Global\CIP Agenda Form\GTEC Status Report\2015\GTEC - Project Status - 2015-01.xlsx Page 2 of 2 2/4/2015
City of Georgetown, Texas
Transportation Advisory Board
February 13, 2015
SUBJECT:
Discussion regarding the Airport Project Progress Report and time lines. – Russ Volk, Airport
Manager and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director
ITEM SUMMARY:
Airport Projects:
CIP - Air Field Electrical Improvements Development and Timeline
FAA Tower report
Airport Monthly Financial
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
n/a
SUBMITTED BY:
Jana Kern
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Tower Update Backup Material
Engineering Update Backup Material
Financials Backup Material
Georgetown Municipal Airport Contract Tower Program Update
February 2015
Project Description Georgetown Tower Update
Purpose Tower Monthly Report
Project Manager Russ Volk, Airport Manager
Engineer
Notes:
Tower Facility Monthly Report
Tower Takeoff and Landing Report.
Item ____ Page _____
Airfield Electrical Improvements
Project No. 1314GRGTN
February 2015
Project Description FY2014 project: Runways / taxiways lighting and signage.
Purpose Improved safety and reliability of airport lighting.
Project Manager Russ Volk, Airport Manager
Engineer Garver Engineering
Notes: Construction progression report
Original estimated construction period: 60 calendar days / nights.
Revised construction completion (due to weather): End March 2015
Prepared by: LKemp
1/28/2015
Georgetown Municipal Airport
As of December 31, 2014
Statement of Operations A - B = C B - D = E
A B C D E
2014/2015 12/31/2013
Budget $ YTD Actuals $%
Beginning Fund Balance 21,612 (A)79,378 (57,766) 517,632 (438,254) -85%
Operating Revenues:
Fuel Sales 2,469,900 602,820 1,867,080 600,905 1,915 0%
Fuel Expense (2,272,600) (529,164) (1,743,436) (540,876) 11,712 -2%
Net Fuel Revenues 197,300 73,656 123,644 60,029 13,627 23%
(B)Leases & Rentals 641,200 140,846 500,354 145,581 (4,736) -3%
(C)Bankruptcy - Georgetown Jet Center - - - 88,952 (88,952) -100%
Interest 4,000 14 3,986 150 (135) -90%
(D)Other Revenues 39,150 1,188 37,962 1,641 (453) -28%
Total Operating Revenues 881,650 215,704 665,946 296,353 (80,650) -27%
Operating Expenses:
Personnel (350,253) (65,207) (285,046) (70,570) 5,363 -8%
Operations (608,072) (367,625) (240,447) (254,484) (113,141) 44%
Total Operating Expenses (958,325) (432,833) (525,492) (325,055) (107,778) 33%
Total - Net Operating Revenues (Expenses)(76,675) (217,129) 140,454 (28,701) (188,428) 657%
Non-Operating Revenues (Expenses):
Bond Proceeds 870,000 - 870,000 - - 0%
Debt - Principal & Interest (178,612) - (178,612) - - 0%
Capital Improvement Program
Settlement Revenue - AJS Drainage - - - 110,000 (110,000) -100%
Transfer from General Fund - Capital Projects - - - 32,750 (32,750) -100%
AJS Draining Improvements - (59) - - (59) 0%
Runway 1836 Lights (770,000) - (770,000) - - 0%
Fuel Farm (100,000) - (100,000) - - 0%
Net Capital Improvement Program (870,000) (59) (870,000) 142,750 (142,809) -100%
Total - Net Non-Operating Revenues (Expenses)(178,612) (59) (178,612) 142,750 (142,809) -100%
Net Revenues/(Expenses)(255,287) (217,188) (38,158) 114,049 (331,237) 153%
Ending Fund Balance (E)(233,675) (137,810) 631,681
NOTES:
(A)Preliminary actual beginning fund balance.
(B)Leases and Rentals include T-Hangars, ground leases, and tie downs.
(C)The City does not expect to receive any more bankruptcy revenue as the lease is now owned by the bank.
(D)Other Revenues include Ad Valorem Tax, special events and discounts. Most are received at fiscal year end.
(E)The Electric Fund is covering the contingency requirements for Airport to meet City-wide contingency reserves per policy,
reserve decreased to 45 days effective October 1, 2014.
*The City operates on a consolidated cash basis. Due to timing of individual fund receivables and payables,
cash and investment fund balances may fluctuate.
12/31/2014
YTD Actuals
Variance
Year to Date
Variance
Budget
Balance Sheet Highlights Current
Preliminary
Actuals
12/31/2014 11/30/2014
10/31/2014 9/30/2014
Assets:
Cash & Investments 10,794 41,391 - 47,180
Accounts Receivable - Leases & Fuel 62,316 58,858 66,979 111,633
Liabilities:
*Due to Consolidated Cash - - (168,612) -
Bond Debt Outstanding 603,847 603,847 603,847 603,847
Prepared by: LKemp
1/28/2015
Georgetown Municipal Airport
As of December 31, 2014
Selected Financial & Operating Data
Operating Statistics December December
2013 2014
Performance/volumetric indicators Y-T-D Y-T-D Variance
Gallons of Fuel Sold 2013 2014
AVGAS gallons sold 17,977 16,769 53,761 60,198 6,437 12%
JET A gallons sold 44,779 32,088 103,628 111,878 8,250 8%
Total Gallons Sold 62,756 48,857 157,389 172,076 14,687 9%
Take Offs and Landings Day*Night*
VFR 3,828 167 15,997 15,343 (654) -4%
IFR 633 67 1,498 1,823 325 22%
Total Take Offs/Landings 4,461 234 17,495 17,166 (329) -2%
*This does not include flyover operations (i.e. handoffs from ABIA approach/departure
control to KGTU tower then onto the next ATC.).
For the Month of:
December
City of Georgetown, Texas
Transportation Advisory Board
February 13, 2015
SUBJECT:
Review and possible action to approve the minutes from the Regular GTAB Board meeting held
on January 9, 2015. - Jana Kern – GTAB Board Liaison
ITEM SUMMARY:
Board to review and revise and/or approve the minutes from the regular meeting held on
January 9, 2015.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
n/a
SUBMITTED BY:
Jana Kern
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Draft Minutes Backup Material
City of Georgetown, Texas
Transportation Advisory Board
February 13, 2015
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible recommendation for the award of the annual bid for Emulsion oil used
in road construction to Ergon Asphalt & Emulsion, Inc. of Austin, Texas ordered on an as needed
basis in the estimated amount of $136,064.15. - Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation
Services Director and Mark Miller, Transportation Services Manager.
ITEM SUMMARY:
Bids were received for bid item “201504 Emulsion &Fog Seal” on December 15th, 2014 to
provide the City with emulsions used for chip seals, tack oil and fog seal oil. Numerous companies
were notified of the bid. Two companies replied with Ergon being the lowest bidder.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Ergon products were used this last year with satisfactory results. Staff recommends award of the
annual bid.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Funds for this expenditure are budgeted in the 203 CIP line items Chip seals, Rejuvenator, Overlay
SUBMITTED BY:
Mark Miller (jk)
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Bid Tab Backup Material
BID NO. 201504
Emulsion & Fog Seal
BID FORM *Ergon Asphalt Ergon P2 Emulsion
Item One year bid from date of order with option to renew for (2) additional one year period Price Per Gallon Estimated Qty's Total Price Per Gallon
1 Emulsion HFRS-2 including freight to a single location in the City of Georgetown 2.3728 5500.00 $13,050.40 No bid
Pump and Hose Charge (Per Load) x 6 times 80.00 6.00 $480.00 80.00
Emulsion HFRS-2 with Plant Pickup 2.2500 4500.00 $10,125.00
Total estimated annual quantity for deliver and pickup of HFRS-2 is 10,000 gallons
2 Emulsion HFRS-2P including freight to a single location in the City of Georgetown 2.7228 10000.00 $27,228.00 No Bid
Pump and Hose Charge (Per Load) x 6 times 80.0000 6.00 $480.00
Emulsion HFRS-2P with Plant Pickup 2.6000 10000.00 $26,000.00
Total estimated annual quantity for deliver and pickup of HFRS-2P is 20,000 gallons
3 Emulsion AE-P including freight to a single location in the City of Georgetown 3.2377 1000.00 $3,237.70 No Bid
Pump and Hose Charge (Per Load) x 6 times 80.00 6.00 $480.00
Emulsion AE-P with Plant Pickup 2.9000 1000.00 $2,900.00
Total estimated annual quantity for deliver and pickup of AE-P is 2,000 gallons
4 Emulsion SS-1 including freight to a single location in the City of Georgetown 2.3728 3500.00 $8,304.80 No Bid
Pump and Hose Charge (Per Load) x 6 times 80.00 6.00 $480.00
Emulsion SS-l with Plant Pickup 2.25 3500.00 $7,875.00
Total estimated annual quantity for deliver and pickup of SS-1 is 7,000 gallons
5 Fog Seal CMS-lPF including freight to a single location in the City of Georgetown 2.4091 7500.00 $18,068.25 2.82
Pump and Hose Charge (Per Load) x 6 times 80.00 6.00 $480.00 80.00
Fog Seal CMS-1PF with Plant Pickup 2.25 7500.00 $16,875.00 2.57
Total estimated annual quantity for delivery and pickup of Fog Seal CMS-1PF is 15,000 gallons
6 Free Demerge Time Allowed 2 hours 2 hours
Additional Hourly Charge for Unloading $80.00 per hour $80.00 per hour
Federal Environmental Fee (not included in bid price)0.00133 per gallon 0 per gallon
Estimated Annual Total -$ 136,064.16 $136,064.15
*Recommended low bidder - Ergon
Exceptions noted: Freight is based on full transport of loads of 5,500 gallons
Return freight is one half of the outgoing tariff.
Ergon Asphalt and Emulsions, Inc.
11612 RM 2244, Bldg 1, Suite 250
Austin, TX 78738
Plant location for CMS-1PF - 907 Second Street, Pleasanton, TX 78064, 830-569-8731
Plant Locations - All other products - 8803 N. Mopac Expressway, Austin, TX 78759
512-345-0975 Austin
No bid
Spectrum Home Services of Central Texas
Babeco
City of Georgetown, Texas
Transportation Advisory Board
February 13, 2015
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible recommendation on awarding a bid to Sierra Demolition of Round
Rock, Texas in the amount of $57,300.00 for demolition of structures purchased as part of the
Smith Branch buyouts. -- Wesley Wright, P.E., Systems Engineering Director
ITEM SUMMARY:
In late 2014, Council authorized the purchase of eight (8) properties in the Smith Branch
watershed with finished floor elevations below the 100 year water surface elevation (floodplain).
A detailed analysis shows that purchasing and demolishing the existing homes was the most cost-
effective mitigation measure. All eight (8) homes have been purchased by the City and are now
vacant awaiting demolition.
On Tuesday, February 3rd, Staff opened bids from seven (7) contractors with Sierra Demolition
being the lowest responsive, responsible bidder. Sierra has completed successful demolition work
for the Cities of Georgetown, Round Rock, Temple, and Somerville in the past.
Upon award, demolition of structures should be completed within approximately one (1) month
and the areas will be returned to an undeveloped state.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends awarding the bid to Sierra Demolition in the amount of $57,300.00.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Funds are available in the current year Drainage Capital Improvement Plan to fund the $57,300
expense (GL code 640-9-0880-90-025). Please see attached budgetary worksheet.
SUBMITTED BY:
Wesley Wright
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Demolition Bid Tabs Backup Material
Budget Worksheet Backup Material
1 2 3 4
ITEM#Sierra Demolition
Southwest
Destructors AAR Inc.
Hunter Demolition &
Wrecking
1 $6,700.00 $7,400.00 $9,100.00 $10,500.00
2 $8,500.00 $10,900.00 $9,775.00 $14,500.00
3 $6,500.00 $7,900.00 $8,275.00 $9,500.00
4 $6,200.00 $7,100.00 $8,300.00 $7,000.00
5 $6,800.00 $8,300.00 $9,825.00 $9,500.00
6 $8,200.00 $12,200.00 $9,750.00 $11,000.00
7 $6,200.00 $7,300.00 $7,125.00 $8,500.00
8 $8,200.00 $11,100.00 $10,400.00 $11,000.00
27
SHIP
TOTAL $57,300.00 $72,200.00 $72,550.00 $81,500.00
TERMS Net 30 Net 30
30 days upon Completion
FOB Destination
Addendum 1
DEL 10 Working Days asap
FOR REFERENCE ONLY - This document summarizes proposals received and some key pieces of information which may be located with a brief examination
of the proposals, and is not intended to replace a complete detailed evaluation of each proposal.
Bid Invitation No.:
Division:
Bid Opening Date:
Systems Engineering
201518
February 3rd, 2015
5 6 7
Building Abatement
Demolition JR Ramon & Sons
Smith
Contracting
$10,880.00 $15,477.48 $17,546.00
$16,000.00 $19,346.85 $24,030.00
$9,600.00 $15,047.55 $16,944.00
$8,960.00 $15,286.40 $16,393.00
$9,600.00 $19,346.85 $17,901.00
$11,520.00 $21,496.50 $19,211.00
$8,320.00 $11,694.52 $15,790.00
$11,520.00 $19,346.85 $19,834.00
$86,400.00 $137,043.00 $147,649.00
Net 30 Net 30 30 days
10 days after TXDSHS notice 45 Calendar Days 30 days
FOR REFERENCE ONLY - This document summarizes proposals received and some key pieces of information which may be located with a brief examination
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
YTD
Spent/Enc Agenda Item
Engineering 238,550
Right of Way 60,000
Construction 1,159,755
Other Costs
testing/inspection
Current Budget
Available
Budget
BUDGET
BALANCE Variance
TOTAL 1,500,000 298,550 1,201,450 1,159,755 41,695 2.78%
General Ledger Account Number
COMMENTS: Testing costs are expected to be 25,000 and will be funded from BUDGET BALANCE
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
YTD
Spent/Enc Agenda Item
Engineering 238,550
Right of Way 60,000
Construction 1,220,000
Other Costs
testing/inspection
Current Budget
Available
Budget
BUDGET
BALANCE Variance
TOTAL 1,500,000 298,550 1,201,450 1,220,000 (18,550) -1.24%
General Ledger Account Number
COMMENTS: Testing costs are expected to be 25,000 and will be funded from BUDGET BALANCE
Example Project
Project 2 Example
DATE:
PROJECT NAME:5AT 2/24/2015
Division/Department:GUS/GTAB-Drainage Director Approval
Prepared By:Wesley Wright Finance Approval La'Ke 2/10/15
TOTAL ANNUAL BUDGET 1,695,000.00
(Current year only)
Actual Cost Agenda Total Spent
Encumbrance Item & Encumbered % Annual
(A) before agenda item (B)(A + B) Budget
Consulting 0.00 0.00 0.00 0%
Right of Way 0.00 0.00 0%
Construction 57,300.00 57,300.00 3%
Other Costs 127,659.80 127,659.80 8%
Total Current Year Costs 127,659.80 184,959.80
Approved
GENERAL LEDGER ACCOUNT NUMBER CY Budget
640-9-0880-90-025 1,695,000.00
Total Budget 1,695,000.00
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET 2,190,000.00
(includes all previous yrs)
Prior Years Current Year Total Project % Total
Spent/Encumbered Costs Costs Budget
Consulting 0.00 0.00 0%
Right of Way 0.00 0.00 0%
Construction 57,300.00 57,300.00 3%
Other Costs 127,659.80 127,659.80 6%
Total Project Costs 0.00 184,959.80 184,959.80
Comments:
Smith Branch Demolition
CIP- Budgetary and Financial Analysis Worksheet
City of Georgetown, Texas
Transportation Advisory Board
February 13, 2015
SUBJECT:
Public hearing on an ordinance and possible recommendation to City Council regarding the updated Overall
Transportation Plan to City Council.- Nat Waggoner, Transportation Analyst, PMP®, Edward G. Polasek,
A.I.C.P, Director, Transportation Services.
ITEM SUMMARY:
This Plan is a continuation of the effort that the City completed in 2004 with the adoption of the initial
OTP, which provided an analysis of existing conditions and travel characteristics, a travel demand model,
review of the City’s roadway functional classification system, and a revised Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP).
This update serves many purposes. It builds upon the previous plan, accommodates city wide changes,
recommends new roadway locations and functional classifications, revises the implementation program and
improves design recommendations through the implementation of Context Sensitive Solutions. The update
also provides a review of the existing sidewalk and pedestrian/bicycle infrastructure and outlines the
requirements for future analysis and planning studies.
Improvements offered for consideration include roadway widening and/or extensions, bicycle and
pedestrian infrastructure, and transit programming. The study involves an evaluation of various
transportation improvements and considers the impacts related to traffic/mobility, anticipated construction,
and right-of-way costs as well as environmental/land use criteria. As part of the study, the travel demand
model has been updated and integrated with the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
(CAMPO) 2035 plan/model providing a more detailed transportation zone structure and socioeconomic
data enabling a better forecast of future travel demands in and around the Georgetown area.
The development of the OTP was a cooperative effort between the City of Georgetown Staff and other
City-supported agencies. While a Technical Advisory Committee was not specifically set up for this effort,
the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB) was updated on a regular basis. During each of
the presentations, comments and suggestions were solicited and considered during completion of the OTP.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
SUBMITTED BY:
Nat Waggoner, PMP®
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
OTP Adoption Ordinance Ordinance
Overall Transportation Plan (OTP) FINAL-reduced Exhibit
Ordinance Number: ________________________ Page 1 of 2
Description: OTP Adoption 2015
Date Approved: _______ 15, 2015
ORDINANCE NO. _____________________
An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, amending the
Comprehensive Plan with the adoption of an updated Overall Transportation
Plan; providing for the terms and conditions of such adoption; providing that a
public hearing has been held; providing a conflict and severability clause; and
establishing an effective date.
Whereas, the Overall Transportation Plan guides roadway improvements, construction of
new facilities, outlines and implements the City’s transportation goals and serves as the basis for
compliance with State and Federal transportation planning bodies’ policies;
Whereas, the Transportation Services Division and Planning Department has completed
technical studies and gathered public input to the Plan; and
Whereas, public notice of such hearing was accomplished in accordance with State Law,
the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, and the City’s Unified Development Code through newspaper
publication; and
Whereas, the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board, at a meeting on February 13,
2015, held the required public hearing and submitted a recommendation of approval to the City
Council for the requested comprehensive plan amendment ; and
Whereas, the City Council, at a meeting on February 24, 2015, held an additional public
hearing prior to taking action on the requested comprehensive plan amendment .
Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas,
that:
Section 1. The facts and recitations contained in the preamble of this Ordinance are hereby
found and declared to be true and correct, and are incorporated by reference herein and expressly
made a part hereof, as if copied verbatim. The City Council hereby finds that this Ordinance
implements the vision, goals, and policies of the Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan and
further finds that the enactment of this Ordinance is not inconsistent or in conflict with any other
policies or provisions of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the City’s Unified Development Code.
Section 2. All ordinances and resolutions, or parts of ordinances and resolutions, in conflict
with this Ordinance are hereby repealed, and are no longer of any force and effect.
Section 3. The Overall Transportation Plan attached as Exhibit A is hereby adopted and the
Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended to include the Overall Transportation Plan attached as
Exhibit A.
Ordinance Number: ________________________ Page 2 of 2
Description: OTP Adoption 2015
Date Approved: _______ 15, 2015
Section 4. If any provision of this Ordinance or application thereof to any person or
circumstance shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions, or
application thereof, of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or
application, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby declared to be severable.
Section 5. The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign this ordinance and the City Secretary to
attest. This ordinance shall become effective in accordance with the provisions of state law and the
City Charter of the City of Georgetown.
APPROVED on First Reading on the ___ day of ____, 2015
APPROVED AND ADOPTED on Second Reading on the ___day of ____, 2015.
THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: ATTEST:
______________________ _________________________
Dale Ross Jessica Brettle
Mayor City Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________
Bridget Chapman
City Attorney
February 3, 2015
Mr. Ed Polasek, AICP
Transportation Services Director
City of Georgetown
300 Industrial Avenue
Georgetown, TX 78627
Re: Georgetown Overall Transportation Plan Update
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001
Dear Mr. Polasek,
Klotz Associates is pleased to provide this final report for the Georgetown Overall Transportation
Plan for the City of Georgetown.
This report documents the development of the update to the City’s Overall Transportation Plan.
Included in this document is an analysis of existing conditions in the study area, as well as an update
to the long range travel demand model. Recommended transportation improvement alternatives
were developed using parameters such as the travel demand model, City of Georgetown input, goals
and objectives as well as current design standards. The recommendations included in this Plan are
for both roadway extensions and widening, as well as for construction of new roadways. The Plan
also recommends the adoption and implementation of not only the Overall Transportation Plan, but
of Sidewalk, Bicycle and Airport Master Plans for the area.
We wish to acknowledge the exceptional cooperation and support provided by City of Georgetown
staff during the development of the Overall Transportation Plan Update and appreciate the
opportunity to have been involved in the important project. We trust that the Overall
Transportation Plan Update will assist the City of Georgetown and your partners in improving
mobility throughout the City.
Sincerely,
Zach Ryan, P.E., CFM
Project Manager
ZR:lc
901 South MoPac Expressway
Building V, Suite 220
Austin, Texas 78746
Texas PE Firm Registration No. F-929
Project No. 0573.003.001
February 2015
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... ES-1
CREDITS
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1-1
Study Background and Purpose ................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1
Study Area .................................................................................................................................... 1-2 1.2
Study Participants ....................................................................................................................... 1-3 1.3
Goals and Objectives ................................................................................................................. 1-3 1.4
Purpose and Benefits of a Transportation Plan ..................................................................... 1-5 1.5
SECTION 2 EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS ................................................. 2-1
Existing Functional Classification System............................................................................... 2-1 2.1
Existing Area Roadways ............................................................................................................ 2-9 2.2
Existing Traffic Signal Locations ........................................................................................... 2-15 2.3
Existing Traffic Generators ..................................................................................................... 2-18 2.4
Georgetown Airport Master Plan ........................................................................................... 2-24 2.5
Existing Daily Traffic Volumes .............................................................................................. 2-24 2.6
Existing Traffic Operations ..................................................................................................... 2-27 2.7
Planned Transportation Improvements ................................................................................ 2-32 2.8
Planned Projects ........................................................................................................................ 2-34 2.9
SECTION 3 TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL ............................................................................ 3-1
Data Analysis and Forecasting .................................................................................................. 3-3 3.1
Traffic Analysis Zones ............................................................................................................... 3-3 3.2
Travel Demand Model Development Overview ................................................................... 3-6 3.3
Existing Roadway Network ....................................................................................................... 3-7 3.4
Existing Planning Data .............................................................................................................. 3-8 3.5
Trip Generation .......................................................................................................................... 3-8 3.6
Trip Distribution Models ........................................................................................................... 3-9 3.7
Traffic Assignment ..................................................................................................................... 3-9 3.8
Additional Data Analysis and Forecasting ............................................................................ 3-11 3.9
Application of 5D Post Process ............................................................................................. 3-12 3.10
Model Application and Refinement ....................................................................................... 3-13 3.11
Summary and Conclusions ...................................................................................................... 3-14 3.12
SECTION 4 CONTEXT SENSITIVE SOLUTIONS ................................................................ 4-1
Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 4-1 4.1
Background .................................................................................................................................. 4-1 4.2
Basic Design Concept ................................................................................................................ 4-4 4.3
Transitions ................................................................................................................................... 4-5 4.4
Proposed Functional Classification System ............................................................................ 4-5 4.5
Georgetown CSS Efforts ........................................................................................................... 4-6 4.6
Next Steps .................................................................................................................................. 4-11 4.7
SECTION 5 FUTURE TRAFFIC IMPACTS ......................................................................... 5-1
Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 5-1 5.1
Traffic Capacity Criteria ............................................................................................................. 5-1 5.2
Future Traffic On Model Network .......................................................................................... 5-1 5.3
Future Transportation Needs ................................................................................................... 5-4 5.4
SECTION 6 PEDESTRIAN PLAN ....................................................................................... 6-1
Georgetown Sidewalk Master Plan .......................................................................................... 6-1 6.1
Georgetown Parks, Recreation and Trails Master Plan ........................................................ 6-1 6.2
Connectivity with Roadways ..................................................................................................... 6-2 6.3
SECTION 7 BICYCLE PLAN .............................................................................................. 7-1
Bicycle Terminology ................................................................................................................... 7-2 7.1
The Bicycle and Bicycle User .................................................................................................... 7-2 7.2
Bicycle Friendly Communities .................................................................................................. 7-3 7.3
Facility Types ............................................................................................................................... 7-3 7.4
Shared Roadways ........................................................................................................................ 7-4 7.5
Bicycle Lanes ............................................................................................................................... 7-6 7.6
Shared Use Paths ........................................................................................................................ 7-8 7.7
City of Georgetown Needs ....................................................................................................... 7-8 7.8
Recommendations .................................................................................................................... 7-14 7.9
SECTION 8 TRANSIT PLAN .............................................................................................. 8-1
Background .................................................................................................................................. 8-1 8.1
Georgetown Fixed-Route Action Plan .................................................................................... 8-2 8.2
Phase 1 .......................................................................................................................................... 8-3 8.3
Lessons Learned .......................................................................................................................... 8-6 8.4
Phase 2 .......................................................................................................................................... 8-6 8.5
Transit Service Summary ........................................................................................................... 8-7 8.6
Future of Georgetown Transit .................................................................................................. 8-7 8.7
SECTION 9 OVERALL TRANSPORTATION PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS ........................ 9-1
Plan Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 9-6 9.1
Effectiveness of Transportation Plan Recommendations .................................................... 9-8 9.2
Multi-Modal Options ................................................................................................................. 9-8 9.3
Overall Corridor Management and Preservation ................................................................... 9-9 9.4
Access Management ................................................................................................................... 9-9 9.5
Context Sensitive Solutions ....................................................................................................... 9-9 9.6
Transportation Improvement Program ................................................................................. 9-10 9.7
TIP Process ................................................................................................................................ 9-11 9.8
Adoption and Implementation of Sidewalk Master Plan .................................................... 9-11 9.9
Completion, Adoption and Implementation of Bicycle Master Plan ............................... 9-11 9.10
Adoption of Transportation Plan ........................................................................................... 9-12 9.11
Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 9-12 9.12
ES-1
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
As a result of completion of the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization’s (CAMPO) 2035
Transportation Plan, the City of Georgetown has updated the City’s Overall Transportation Plan
(OTP). The implementation of the OTP is critical in the overall development of the City as it guides
future roadway improvements, construction of new facilities, and outlines the City’s transportation
goals. The revision and adoption of the OTP is a deliberate and thoughtful process whose goal is the
complete understanding of the relationship between land use and the transportation infrastructure
required to support those land uses. The adoption of the OTP by ordinance, sets forth long term
capital planning and financing considerations designed to ensure that basic transportation
infrastructure needs and right-of-way will be available as the city grows and network needs
improvements.
STUDY BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
This updated document is a continuation of the effort that the City completed in 2004 with the
adoption of the initial OTP, which provided an analysis of existing conditions and travel
characteristics, a travel demand model, review of the City’s roadway functional classification system ,
and a revised Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The 2004 OTP assisted the City in
defining cross-sectional needs as well as access management and detailed intersection needs.
Since the 2004 OTP, the City has experienced tremendous growth, including several major retail and
residential developments. Additionally, the 2030 Comprehensive Plan adopted in 2008 includes a
revised Future Land Use Plan. While the Comprehensive Plan serves as a guide for physical growth
and land use within the City, the OTP provides guidelines for transportation management and
development. These documents should be used in coordination with one another, not as separate
competing documents.
This update serves many purposes. It builds upon the previous plan, accommodates city wide
changes, recommends new roadway locations and functional classifications, revises the
implementation program and improves design recommendations through the implementation of
Context Sensitive Solutions. The update also provides a review of the existing sidewalk and
pedestrian/bicycle infrastructure and outlines the requirements for future analysis and planning
studies.
ES-2
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
The transportation improvement recommendations are based on the projected 2035 travel demands.
The implementation program will categorize improvements through short-term and long-term
prioritization recommendations. The improvements already chosen for funding are identified as
“near term” and those where funding, routing, and right-of-way have not been identified are
considered “long term”. Potential improvements offered for consideration include roadway
widening and/or extensions, bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, and transit programming. The
study involves an evaluation of various transportation improvements and considers the impacts
related to traffic/mobility, anticipated construction, and right-of-way costs as well as
environmental/land use criteria. As part of the study, the travel demand model has been updated
and integrated with the CAMPO’s 2035 plan/model providing a more detailed transportation zone
structure and socioeconomic data enabling a better forecast of future travel demands in and around
the Georgetown area.
STUDY AREA
The study area for the OTP includes the City of Georgetown city limits as well as the Extra
Territorial Jurisdictional (ETJ) area, which typically extends one to two miles beyond the city’s limits.
This area includes added roadways of which the City has sole control, including Williams Drive,
Shell Road, D B Wood Road, and Inner Loop. These facilities provide critical connectivity for the
residents within the City and, while there are some limitations, there are opportunities for roadway
expansion. The study area is depicted in Figure ES-1.
There are many transportation facilities within the city that are not under the City’s jurisdictional
control. These include Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) facilities such as Interstate
Highway 35, Business Highway 35 (Austin Avenue), State Highways 29 and 195, as well as the tolled
State Highway 130. There are also state facilities that provide regional circulation – Farm-to-Market
Roads 971, 972 and 1460, as well as Ranch-to-Market roads 2243 (Leander Road) and 2338
(Williams Drive). These facilities are outside of the purview of the City and as such, only limited
improvements can be recommended. In addition, many roads are challenged by the surrounding
geography and land uses such that improvement recommendations are extremely difficult and cost
prohibitive to implement. Many of these facilities provide a critical link in the City’s overall
development plan yet there is little opportunity for roadway improvement.
ES-3
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
§¨¦35
§¨¦35
Georgetown
Round Rock
Cedar Park
¬«29
Weir
¬«195
¬«29
Lake Georgetown
Study Area
²0 1 2 3 40.5 Miles
Figure ES-1
FM 971
University Av
e
.
Inner Loop
C
R
1
1
0
CR 150
Westinghou
s
e
R
d
.
D
B
W
o
o
d
R
d
.
Wi
l
l
i
a
m
s
D
r
.
Airp
o
r
t
R
d
.
Shell Rd.Del We
b
b
B
l
v
d
.
S
u
n
C
i
t
y
B
l
v
d
.
Roads
Rivers & Streams
Lakes
Round Rock
Georgetown
Georgetown ETJ
Weir
Cedar Park
FM 1460
RM 2243
Pa
t
h
:
G
:
\
0
5
7
3
.
0
0
3
.
0
0
1
F
i
n
a
l
i
z
e
O
T
P
U
p
d
a
t
e
s
\
0
7
.
0
0
C
A
D
D
\
R
e
v
i
s
e
d
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
s
_
2
0
1
5
-
0
2
-
0
3
\
E
S
-
1
S
t
u
d
y
A
r
e
a
.
m
x
d
ES-4
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
STUDY PARTICIPANTS
The development of the OTP was a cooperative effort between the City of Georgetown Staff and
other City-supported agencies. While a Technical Advisory Committee was not specifically set up for
this effort, the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB) was updated on a regular basis.
During each of the presentations, comments and suggestions were solicited and considered during
completion of the OTP.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Four public meetings were held, inviting the public to learn about the project and the changes that
have occurred city wide since the previously adopted OTP. Two meetings were held on April 13,
2010 and two were held on November 10, 2010. On April 13, one meeting occurred in the morning
at Sun City and the second meeting occurred that evening at the City of Georgetown offices. There
were a total of 20 people in attendance at these two meetings. Individuals were invited to discuss
issues and concerns as they related to the Georgetown transportation system and network, including
the existing roadway network, pedestrian and bicycle trails/paths, and transit needs/usage. The
meeting attendees were asked to provide input regarding all aspects of the updated OTP.
The feedback received at the first two meetings was analyzed and a second set of public meetings
was held in November 2010 to present the recommended roadway improvements. As with the April
2010 meetings, the morning meeting was held at Sun City and the evening meeting was held at the
City of Georgetown offices. There were approximately 20 people at the morning session and four
people at the evening session.
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The goals established as part of this study will mirror those set forth in the previous 2004 plan as
well as the overriding transportation goals from the recently completed 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
The goal of the OTP is to develop a transportation system that is safe, efficient and economically
feasible and will accommodate present and future needs for mobility of all people and goods
traveling within and through the Georgetown area. This goal will be revisited during subsequent
updates, but will remain unchanged; only the underlying objectives will be further refined. A
secondary goal of this study is to review the existing pedestrian/bicycle plans and recommend
further planning development and programming needs. These recommendations provide a
ES-5
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
foundation on which to build a more complete system through the implementation and adoption of
a comprehensive bicycle and sidewalk plan.
The following goals and objectives established in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan provided the
framework for the development of the OTP. They establish the community values and aspirations,
as they relate to transportation, in each of four main themes: quality of life, sustainable development,
balanced transportation/efficient mobility, and effective governance.
The transportation goals and objectives are:
Implement improvements to the local road and traffic control system, including new
thoroughfare linkages to enhance connectivity, improved and coordinated traffic
signalization, standards for access management to enhance traffic flow and safety.
Progress toward a functional, well-integrated, multi-modal transportation system that
provides a variety of choices – bicycle, public transportation, and pedestrian – on a local and
regional level.
Reduce reliance on single-occupant automobile traffic by retrofitting bicycle lanes and
sidewalks in underserved areas to enhance bicycle and pedestrian mobility; incorporating
these facilities in new developments; and encouraging compact mixed-use and other
“walkable” development types.
Guide the future growth and development of the City toward a more balanced approach
between employment and commercial centers, schools and other high traffic generators.
As further refined by the stakeholders, the following goals and objectives were set forth to guide the
development of the OTP:
1. Provide for a high degree of safety for motorists, transit users, pedestrians and bicyclists
2. The transportation system should be a total system approach, incorporating the various
modes of transportation in appropriate combination, based on analysis of travel demand
and consideration of community costs, benefits and needs.
a. Roadway facilities should be planned and classified by function and relative
importance, providing a proper balance of freeways, toll ways, expressways,
major/minor arterials, collectors and local streets.
ES-6
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
b. Through traffic should be encouraged and accommodated on the classified roadway
network and discouraged on collectors and local neighborhood streets.
c. The most efficient use of existing and future highway and street facilities should be
encouraged to maximize the benefits of capital investments.
3. The transportation system should consider planned development patterns, accessibility
and mobility needs.
a. Improve overall accessibility to employment, education, public facilities, downtown
and other activity centers
b. Provide access between all developed areas of the region and connections to other
cities and facilities in the region
c. Minimize disruption of existing and planned developments and establish community
patterns
d. Consider development potential within and beyond the extraterritorial jurisdiction
(ETJ) for the design years and provide tools to assess the impacts of growth to assist
the decision making. This includes the recently adopted CAMPO Growth Center
model, the specifics of which are discussed further within this report.
4. Meet the area’s long range transportation needs.
a. Establish the procedures for monitoring the OTP and provide for periodic updating
and revision. The OTP should be updated on a pre-scheduled annual basis to allow
for incorporation of all new developments and roadway projects. It should provide
sufficient flexibility to accommodate changes in land use planning for the City of
Georgetown and other unforeseen changes and conditions.
b. Preserve right-of-way for future roadway development and expansion.
c. Transportation planning should be performed within the framework of
comprehensive regional planning and should support regional growth and
development goals.
ES-7
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
d. Provide for an orderly improvement and expansion of the roadway system at a
minimum cost as the need for improvement arises.
5. Consideration should be given to social and environmental impacts.
a. Minimize air and water pollution, noise and other environmental impacts of
transportation improvement and new facility construction and reduce negative
impacts when possible.
b. Minimize the impacts social impacts to particular areas of the City. All roadway
improvement recommendations should not be concentrated in a single location. As
much as possible they should be equitable across the City.
TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL DEVELOPMENT
The primary focus of the updated OTP is the development and refinement of the existing Travel
Demand Model (TDM). Using this travel demand model, existing and forecasted future traffic
demands on the transportation network were determined. For this study both the completed 2035
CAMPO model and the existing Georgetown TDM were used. The CAMPO model was used to
project future traffic demands on a regional basis and the existing roadway network was obtained
from the Georgetown TDM. These two models were combined to complete the refined
Georgetown network using 2035 regional data in conjunction with the existing Georgetown model
network. The refined Georgetown network has been input into the existing TDM and was defined
further to include areas that had been annexed and/or developed since completion of the 2004
OTP. Once completed, both models (CAMPO and Georgetown) work in coordination with one
another providing not only a regional review of roadway operating conditions, but a more localized
analysis based solely on the refined Georgetown network.
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
Roadway functional classification refers to the hierarchical arrangement between roadways and the
interaction therein. The City of Georgetown UDC uses eight distinct classifications; Alley,
Residential Lane, Residential Local Street, Residential and Major Collector, Minor and Major
Arterial, and Freeway. Each classification has a distinct function in terms of allowing movement in
and around the City of Georgetown. For example, alleys serve local residences, providing access to
and from individual residences at low speeds and volumes. In comparison, freeways primarily
ES-8
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
provide regional access, traveling across town or connecting Georgetown to other cities within the
region. Those roadway classifications within the study area are depicted in Figure ES-2.
ES-9
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
§¨¦35
§¨¦35
Georgetown
Round Rock
Cedar Park
¬«29
Weir
¬«195
¬«29
Lake Georgetown
Existing Functional Classification
²0 1 2 3 40.5 Miles
Figure ES-2
FM 971
University Av
e
.
Inner Loop
C
R
1
1
0
CR 150
Westinghous
e
R
d
.
D
B
W
o
o
d
R
d
.
Wi
l
l
i
a
m
s
D
r
.
Airp
o
r
t
R
d
.
Shell Rd.Del Web
b
B
l
v
d
.
S
u
n
C
i
t
y
B
l
v
d
.
Freeways/Frontage Roads
Major Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
Local Roads
Rivers & Streams
Georgetown
Georgetown ETJ
Round Rock
Weir
Cedar Park
Lakes
Pa
t
h
:
G
:
\
0
5
7
3
.
0
0
3
.
0
0
1
F
i
n
a
l
i
z
e
O
T
P
U
p
d
a
t
e
s
\
0
7
.
0
0
C
A
D
D
\
R
e
v
i
s
e
d
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
s
_
2
0
1
5
-
0
2
-
0
3
\
E
S
-
2
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
F
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
C
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
.
m
x
d
RM 2243 FM 1460
ES-10
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS
Using the refined TDM, a detailed roadway analysis was completed. This analysis, commonly
referred to as a Level of Service (LOS) analysis, is used to evaluate existing and projected traffic
volumes on the study area roadways. Once the operating conditions have been analyzed, an
operational LOS is assigned to each roadway link. There are six LOS capacity conditions for each
roadway facility, designated “A” through “F”. This is much like a rating system with roadway
segments ranked from LOS A (representing a free-flow optimal condition) to LOS F (representing a
congested forced flow condition).
As proposed within the OTP, LOS D is the threshold at which a roadway operates at or above
acceptable conditions. Currently the City of Georgetown’s Unified Development Code has a
threshold of LOS C; however, this is primarily for peak hour intersection conditions. Improvements
are easier to make at intersections as opposed to roadway segments because attaining LOS C is more
difficult and costly. Typically LOS D is utilized in more urbanized areas. As the City of
Georgetown continues to grow, this LOS threshold may need to be evaluated. LOS D is a more
realistic performance measure to achieve in roadway operations, and as such, it is the recommended
goal threshold.
Under existing conditions, most roadways operate at or better than LOS D. There are some
exceptions, primarily segments of Williams Drive and SH 29. A number of segments associated with
these roadways are operating at LOS E or LOS F.
FUTURE GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT
As was highlighted within the CAMPO 2035 plan, the City of Georgetown is expected to experience
significant growth and development. With this influx of residential developments and the myriad
commercial/office developments, population and employment are projected to increase. It is
anticipated that Georgetown will attain a population level of at least 100,000 residents by 2030, a
substantial increase from 47,400 residents in 2010. This has significant funding and control
implications for the City, from control of all traffic signals to funding a separate/independent transit
system. Thus, the need for transportation infrastructure improvements becomes paramount.
As part of the CAMPO 2035 Plan, the concept of Activity Centers was developed. This concept
evolved out of the Envision Central Texas (ECT) initiative that began in the early 2000s and has
spurred a number of new ideas to improve the way Central Texas grows into the future. The
ES-11
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
preferred growth pattern developed through the scenario planning effort of the ECT identified key
areas where future population and employment growth could be developed into walkable activity
centers around the region.
Within the Georgetown city limits and ETJ, there is only one activity center. Another 36 activity
centers are located in the surrounding Central Texas region, including one large center, 13 medium
centers, and 23 small centers. The Georgetown activity center is medium and is centered on the
proposed location of the planned Lone Star rail station in the City’s southeast quadrant. Since the
ECT was initiated and the scenario planning efforts were accomplished, CAMPO has adopted these
concepts and integrated them into their growth projections for 2035. The following descriptions
were adapted from CAMPO’s 2035 Regional Growth Concept report from May 2007.
The large growth area is the Austin Central City, which consists of the central business district
(CBD), the Capitol, and the University of Texas. This area has the region’s highest amount of
housing, jobs and recreational opportunities. It has a radius of approximately two miles and has the
potential to contain a population of at least 125,000 and employment of 200,000 in 2035.
The medium growth areas (within the Georgetown city limits) are large regional cores that are major
centers for population and employment in the future. They have a radius of approximately one mile
and have the potential to contain a population in the range of 9,000 to 75,000. According to the
Texas Workforce Commission, the Georgetown Activity Center had 1,400 employees in 2005. The
potential for this area ranges from 9,000 to 40,000 employees in full build-out.
The small growth areas are smaller centers that are more focused on serving medium-sized
communities and neighborhoods. In most instances, these centers have a key transit node that
connects to the larger regional transportation network. These small activity centers have a radius of
approximately ½ mile and have the potential to contain a population in the range of 2,000 to 10,0 00
and employment of 2,000 to 10,000.
RECOMMENDED DESIGN STANDARDS
The roadway design standards represent the minimum criteria required to support the City’s
roadway spatial planning and rights-of-way needs while ensuring the functionality of the
transportation network. The roadway design standards are presented below in Figure ES-3. The
minimum criteria in this Plan include the number of lanes and their width, median widths, parking
ES-12
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
allowances, bike lanes and sidewalks requirements per roadway functional classification. These
classifications and their required minimums can and do change over time. As land use changes and
transportation facilities develop, the classification and related design can be altered through the OTP
amendment process described in this Plan. Although the recommended minimum cross-section
criteria will not change significantly, this Plan does recognize the value in providing guidelines that
complement the City’s varying land uses and community characteristics.
ES-13
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
8'
ROW = 73' MINIMUM
14'14'
45'
8'14.5' 14.5'
ROW = 110' MINIMUM
80'
12' 12'12'12'
MEDIAN
22'
ROW = 135' MINIMUM
VARIES
110'
12' 12' 12'
MEDIAN
28'12'12'12'
ROW = 50' MINIMUM
28'
8'
11'
BORDER
AREA
11'6'16'6'
ROW = 65' MINIMUM
37'
14'14'8'10.5' 10.5'
BORDER
AREA
PA
R
K
PA
R
K
BORDER
AREA
BORDER
AREA
BORDER
AREA
BORDER
AREA
BORDER
AREA
BORDER
AREA
BORDER
AREA
BORDER
AREA
PA
R
K
PA
R
K
VARIES
VARIESVARIES
PAVEMENT MEASUREMENTS ARE
FACE OF CURB TO FACE OF CURB.
SEE CHAPTER 2 FOR COLLECTOR
OPTIONS FOR 3 AND 4 LANE
CONFIGURATIONS.
NOTES
1
1 1
1
1
1
2
5'5'
BI
K
E
BI
K
E
5'5'
BI
K
E
BI
K
E
2
Functional Classification System
Cross-Sections
Figure ES-3
Major Arterial
ADT > 24,000
Minor Arterial
ADT > 12,500
Major Collector
ADT > 2,500
Residential Collector
ADT > 800
Residential Local Street
ADT < 800
Pa
t
h
:
G
:
\
0
5
7
3
.
0
0
3
.
0
0
1
F
i
n
a
l
i
z
e
O
T
P
U
p
d
a
t
e
s
\
0
7
.
0
0
C
A
D
D
\
R
e
v
i
s
e
d
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
s
_
2
0
1
5
-
0
2
-
0
3
\
E
S
-
3
C
r
o
s
s
-
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
m
x
d
ES-14
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
CONTEXT SENSITIVE SOLUTIONS OVERVIEW
In an on-going effort to coordinate transportation engineering and planning efforts, a national
dialogue has been established to move toward the implementation of CSS applications to new
roadway projects. CSS is a philosophy that guides public agencies and private entities in all phases of
project development, from planning through project scoping, design and into construction and
maintenance. CSS strives for outcomes that meet transportation service and safety needs in addition
to environmental, scenic, aesthetic, cultural, natural resource and community needs. Context
sensitive projects recognize community goals, and are planned, scoped, designed, built and
maintained while minimizing disruption to the community and the environment. CSS is not an
aesthetic treatment; rather, it involves development of a transportation solution that fits into the
project’s surroundings.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommended transportation plan for the City of Georgetown has been developed based on
three primary components: community input, community needs and TDM results. Subsidiary inputs
to the TDM ultimately determined what recommendations were made. These inputs included
forecasted future traffic volumes, network continuity, future developments (based upon adopted
future land use plan), corridor preservation and access management. The recommendations included
in this Plan are for both roadway extensions and widening, as well as for construction of new
roadways. While many of these recommendations have been previously identified, there are a
number of new projects that have developed because of the growth and development that has
occurred and is projected to continue. All identified roadway improvement projects are listed in
Chapter 5 and the 2035 proposed thoroughfare plan is shown in Figure ES-4.
PLAN ADOPTION
Once the public has had an opportunity to provide comments and recommendations, the updated
OTP will be finalized and implementation strategies will be developed. It is imperative that the Plan
be fully adopted by the City Council and GTAB in order to recognize the development of the OTP
as part of the City’s policies and guidelines.
ES-15
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
PLAN AMENDMENTS AND UPDATES
The OTP is developed through a deliberate, thoughtful and collaborative process. It forecasts needs
based on existing conditions and assumptions and therefore is critical that it remain a flexible and
working document. Acknowledging that as land uses, the economic environment, and travel demand
needs evolve over time, amendments to the adopted network may be warranted. The
recommendations provided herein set forth long term financing and technical design work flows for
both public and private sector activities. Changes to the City’s transportation infrastructure plan
must recognize and fully understand the affect those changes will have on private and public
interests. Modifications to the recommended transportation networks described by this OTP
should only result from similar, deliberate and technical studies and the appropriate public processes
set forth in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
ES-16
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
\\\\\\\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
§¨¦35
§¨¦35
Georgetown
Round Rock
Cedar Park
¬«29
Weir
¬«195
¬«29
Lake Georgetown
Proposed 2035 Thoroughfare Plan
Figure ES-4
FM 971
UNIVERSITY
A
V
E
INNER LOO
P
WESTINGH
O
U
S
E
R
D
D
B
W
O
O
D
R
D
WI
L
L
I
A
M
S
D
R
AIR
P
O
R
T
R
D
SHELL R
D
DEL W
E
B
B
B
L
V
D
S
U
N
C
I
T
Y
B
L
V
D
Existing Freeway
Existing Major Arterial
Existing Minor Arterial
Existing Collector
Proposed Freeway
Proposed Major Arterial
Proposed Minor Arterial
Proposed Collector
\\\Proposed Rail
Local Roads
Cedar Park
Round Rock
Weir
Georgetown
Georgetown ETJ
F
M
1
4
6
0
RM 2243
²0 1 2Miles
Pa
t
h
:
G
:
\
0
5
7
3
.
0
0
3
.
0
0
1
F
i
n
a
l
i
z
e
O
T
P
U
p
d
a
t
e
s
\
0
7
.
0
0
C
A
D
D
\
R
e
v
i
s
e
d
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
s
_
2
0
1
5
-
0
2
-
0
3
\
E
S
-
4
2
0
3
5
T
h
r
o
u
g
h
f
a
r
e
P
l
a
n
.
m
x
d
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
Mayor
Dale Ross
City Council
Patty Eason Keith Brainard
John Hesser Steve Fought
Jerry Hammerlum Rachel Jonrowe
Tommy Gonzales
Interim City Manager
Jim Briggs
GTEC Board
Tommy Gonzalez Jerry Hammerlun
Johnny Anderson Bill Connor
John Hesser Leo Wood
GTAB Board
Steve Johnston John Pettit Truman Hunt
John Hesser Christopher H’Luz Ray Armour
Rachel Jonrowe David Johnson Scott Rankin
City Manager
Jim Briggs
City Staff
Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager
Ed Polasek, A.I.C.P., Transportation Engineer
Jordan Maddox, A.I.C.P., Principal Planner
Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer
Mark Miller, Transportation Services Manager
Nat Waggoner, PMP, Transportation Analyst
Jana Kern, Administrative Assistant
Prepared by:
Klotz Associates, Inc.
In association with:
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
City of Georgetown Staff
As approved by Georgetown City Council
March 10, 2015
1-1
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
In coordination with the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization’s (CAMPO)
Long Range Transportation Plan, the City of Georgetown has completed an update of the
Overall Transportation Plan (OTP). The implementation of the OTP is critical in the overall
development of the City. Just as the Comprehensive Plan outlines the long-term goals and
objectives for the overall vision of what Georgetown strives to be, the OTP serves as a guide
for development of future transportation systems. The OTP is a working document that
enables the City to plan for future transportation needs. Through the adoption of the OTP
the City is ensuring that the basic transportation infrastructure needs and right-of-way are
available as the city grows and system improvements are warranted.
The OTP adopted in 2004, laid the foundation for roadway analysis and made
recommendations with respect to the future system needs. This updated OTP is more
comprehensive and introduces the need for new elements such as a bicycle plan, a sidewalk
plan and a transit plan. While some recommendations cannot be immediately implemented,
the plan outlines specific, measurable steps the City can take and review on an annual basis
as it works towards full realization.
Study Background and Purpose 1.1
The initial OTP adopted in 2004 provided an analysis of the existing conditions and
travel characteristics, refined the area-wide travel demand model, reviewed the City’s
roadway functional classification system, and revised the Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP). This analysis was solely for the purpose of identifying
and prioritizing future roadway needs.
Since the 2004 plan, the City has experienced tremendous growth and development.
Additionally, the 2030 Comprehensive Plan which includes a revised Future Land
Use Plan, has been completed. The Comprehensive Plan serves as a guide for
physical growth and development and the OTP serves as a guide for transportation
development. These documents should be used in coordination with one another,
not as separate competing documents.
1-2
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
The updated OTP serves several purposes. It is accounts for change that have
occurred since the previous plan; it provides recommendations for new roadway
locations and functional classifications. The updated plan revises the implementation
program and improves the design recommendations through the implementation of
CSS. A secondary purpose is the review of the existing sidewalk and
pedestrian/bicycle plans to determine the existing network and lay the ground work
for future needs.
The transportation improvement recommendations are based on projected 2035
travel demands. The implementation program prioritizes the improvements through
short and long-term recommendations. The improvements identified for funding
prior to this adopted OTP are identified as “near term” and those where funding,
routing, and right-of-way have not been identified are considered “long term”.
Potential improvements include roadway widening and/or extensions, bicycle and
pedestrian infrastructure, and transit considerations. This study involves an
evaluation of various transportation improvements and considers the impacts related
to traffic/mobility, anticipated construction and right-of-way costs, and
environmental/land use criteria. As part of the study, the TDM has been updated
and integrated with CAMPO’s 2035 plan/model and provides a more detailed zone
structure and additional socioeconomic data. By modifying the CAMPO travel
demand model, the Georgetown TDM provides better forecasts of future travel
demands in and around the Georgetown area.
Study Area 1.2
The study area for the OTP includes the City of Georgetown city limits as well as the
Extra Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) area, which typically extends one to two miles
beyond the city limits, as shown in Figure ES-1. There are roadways in the study
area that the City has complete control over including Shell Road, D B Wood Road,
Williams Drive, and Inner Loop. These facilities provide critical connectivity for the
residents within the city. There are also many transportation facilities within the City
that are not under its jurisdictional control. These include Texas Department of
Transportation (TxDOT) facilities such as Interstate Highway 35, State Spurs 26 and
1-3
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
158 (Austin Avenue), State Highways 29 and 195, and the tolled State Highway 130.
In addition, there are state and Williamson County facilities that provide regional
circulation – Farm-to-Market Roads 971, 972 and 1460, as well as Ranch-to-Market
Road 2243 (Leander Road). These facilities lie outside of the purview of the City and
only limited improvements can be recommended. In addition, many of these
facilities have significant adjacent development making improvement
recommendations extremely difficult and cost prohibitive. Each of these facilities
provides a critical link in the City’s overall development plan.
Study Participants 1.3
The development of the OTP was a cooperative effort between the City of
Georgetown staff and other City supported agencies. While a Technical Advisory
Committee was not specifically set up for this effort, the Georgetown Transportation
Advisory Board (GTAB) was updated on a regular basis. Comments and suggestions
were solicited during each of the presentations.
Goals and Objectives 1.4
It was determined that the goals established as part of this study would mirror those
set forth in the previous OTP (since this is an update) and follow the transportation
goals set forth within the Comprehensive Plan.
The overall goal of the OTP is to develop a transportation system that will
accommodate present and future needs for mobility of all people and goods traveling
within and through the Georgetown area, which is safe, efficient and economically
feasible. While this goal is revisited during subsequent updates, the goal is not
changed, only the underlying objectives are refined further.
The following goals and objectives established in the Comprehensive Plan provide
the framework from which the City can develop the OTP. They set forth the
community values and aspirations related to transportation in each of four main
themes: quality of life, sustainable development, balanced transportation/efficient
mobility, and effective governance.
1-4
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
Implement improvements to the local road and traffic control system, including
new thoroughfare linkages to enhance connectivity, improved and coordinated
traffic signalization, standards for access management to enhance traffic flow and
safety.
Progress toward a functional, well-integrated, multi-modal transportation system
that provides a variety of choices – bicycle, public transportation, and pedestrian
– on a local and regional level.
Reduce reliance on single-occupant automobile traffic and conventional fuels by
promoting alternative fuel vehicles; retrofitting bicycle lanes and sidewalks in
underserved areas to enhance bicycle and pedestrian mobility; incorporating
these facilities in new developments; and encouraging compact mixed-use and
other “walkable” development types.
Guide the future growth and development of the City toward a more balanced
approach between employment and commercial centers, schools and other high
traffic generators.
The following goals and objectives were set forth to guide the development of the
OTP:
1. Provide for a high degree of safety for motorists, transit users, pedestrians and
bicyclists.
2. Transportation facilities should be considered as a total system incorporating the
various modes of transportation in appropriate combination, based on analysis of
travel demand and consideration of community costs, benefits and needs.
c. Roadway facilities should be planned and classified based on function and
relative importance, providing a proper balance of freeways, toll ways,
expressways, major/minor arterials, collectors and local streets.
d. Encourage and accommodate through traffic on the classified roadway
network and discourage it on collectors and local neighborhood streets.
e. Encourage the most efficient use of existing and future highway and street
facilities to maximize the benefits of capital investments.
3. The transportation system should consider planned development patterns,
accessibility and mobility needs.
1-5
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
a. Improve overall accessibility to employment, education, public facilities,
downtown and other activity centers.
b. The transportation system should provide access between all developed areas
of the region.
c. Minimize disruption of existing and planned developments and establish
community patterns.
d. Consider development potential within and beyond the ETJ for the design
years and provide tools to assess the impacts of growth to support decision
making. This includes the recently adopted CAMPO Growth Center model as
discussed in this report.
4. Meet the area’s long range transportation needs.
a. Establish procedures for monitoring the OTP and provide for periodic
updating and revision. These procedures should provide sufficient flexibility
to accommodate changes in land use planning for the City of Georgetown
and other unforeseen changes and conditions.
b. Preserve right-of-way for future roadway development and expansion.
c. Perform transportation planning within the framework of comprehensive
regional planning to support regional growth and development goals.
d. Provide for an orderly improvement and expansion of the roadway system at
a minimum cost as the need for improvement arises.
5. Consideration should be given to social and environmental impacts.
a. Minimize air, noise and water pollution, as well as other environmental
impacts of transportation improvement and new facility construction.
Purpose and Benefits of a Transportation Plan 1.5
Transportation planning is one of the most cost beneficial processes that a
municipality can undertake. The process plans for future system improvements in an
orderly fashion, allowing for prioritization of future Transportation Improvement
Programs (TIPs) and aiding in the justification of future expenditures. In general, the
plan provides a mechanism for the City to develop an efficient and effective
transportation system for existing and future community needs. In addition to the
1-6
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
roadway network, the plan also includes bicycle, sidewalk and transit planning
considerations. Effective transportation planning is an integral part of the overall
urban planning and community development process.
2-1
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
This chapter outlines the existing transportation network and conditions within the City of
Georgetown and the ETJ. While there have been a number of improvements since the
previous transportation plan, the City is still primarily served by the same roadway system.
Improvements which have occurred since the last update are either the construction of new
facilities resulting from new development (residential or commercial) or the localized
improvement to an existing facility (i.e. the widening of Williams Drive). Included in this
chapter are discussions concerning area roadways and functional classification, capacity
analyses and proposed improvements.
Existing Functional Classification System 2.1
Roadway functional classification refers to the hierarchical differences betwee n
roadways and the interaction therein. The classifications are a general guideline and
they can change over time as land use changes and transportation facilities develop.
As defined within the City of Georgetown’s UDC, there are eight distinct
classifications: Alley, Residential Lane, Residential Local Street, Residential and
Major Collector, Minor and Major Arterial, and Freeway. With the exception of the
Alley and Residential Lane classification, each of these roadways is shown in Figure
2-1. It should be noted that the Local and Collector designation shown on the Map
Key correspond to the Residential Local Classification and Residential and Major
Collector (combined) Classification.
2-2
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
§¨¦35
§¨¦35
Georgetown
Round Rock
Cedar Park
¬«29
Weir
¬«195
¬«29
Lake Georgetown
WI
L
L
I
A
M
S
D
R
IN
N
E
R
L
O
O
P
UNIVERSITY AVE
D
B
W
O
O
D
R
D
AIR
P
O
R
T
R
D
S
U
N
C
I
T
Y
B
L
V
D
SHELL R
D
DEL W
E
B
B
B
L
V
D
Existing Functional
Classification System
²0 1 2 3 40.5 Miles
Figure 2-1
RM 2243
WESTINGH
O
U
S
E
R
D
Georgetown
Georgetown ETJ
Round Rock
Weir
Cedar Park
Lakes
Freeways/Frontage Roads
Major Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
Local Roads
Pa
t
h
:
G
:
\
0
5
7
3
.
0
0
3
.
0
0
1
F
i
n
a
l
i
z
e
O
T
P
U
p
d
a
t
e
s
\
0
7
.
0
0
C
A
D
D
\
R
e
v
i
s
e
d
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
s
_
2
0
1
5
-
0
2
-
0
3
\
2
-
1
E
x
i
s
t
F
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
C
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
.
m
x
d
FM 1460
FM 971
2-3
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
Alley – An alley serves primarily as a side or rear access point to a residential or
commercial establishment. Traditionally alleys are not intended to accommodate
traffic beyond that accessing the adjacent land uses. This classification is required to
allow for fire, emergency and sold waste service vehicles.
Local Street – Residential
Lanes and Residential Local
Streets fall under this
designation. These streets
are intended to provide
access to adjoining
properties by collecting the
traffic from surrounding
areas and distributing it to adjoining collectors or arterial streets. Local streets can
access both collector level streets and arterial level streets.
Collector Streets – Residential and Major Collector classifications fall under this
designation. These streets are intended to balance traffic between arterial streets and
local streets. These streets tend to carry a high volume of traffic over shorter
distances, providing access and movement between neighborhoods, parks, schools,
retail areas and the arterial street system.
Arterial Streets – Arterial streets provide traffic movement through and between
different areas within the city and access to adjacent land uses. Access is more
controllable because driveway spacing requirements are much greater and, if safety
dictates, overall access can be limited to specific turning movements. Minor Arterials
connect lower functional classifications and major arterials and tend to be shorter in
distance. Major Arterials connect major traffic generators and land use
concentrations and serve much larger traffic volumes over greater distances.
Freeways/Tollways – Freeways and Tollways are controlled access roadways that allow
for the movement of traffic through and around the City. This classification includes
interstate highways, state highways, tollways and loops. Direct property access is
limited as access is not the intended purpose of these facilities. Design characteristics
2-4
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
of these facilities include multiple travel lanes, limited access points, high traffic
volumes and high traffic speeds.
It is the goal of the City of Georgetown to limit roadway connections to no more
than one step above wherever possible. For example, residential streets should
connect to collector streets wherever possible, but not connect to streets larger than
a minor arterial, for more information on this, see Figure 2-2 and Table 2-1.
Detailed roadway cross sections are shown in Figures 2-2a – 2-2d.
2-5
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
2-6
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
2-7
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
11'
45'
BORDER
AREA
11.5'14'14'
BORDER
AREA
11.5'11'
Major Collector - Type 3
ADT = 8,500 TO 12,500
ROW = 73'
16'
45'
BORDER
AREA
14.5'14.5'14'14'
BORDER
AREA
CTWLTL
ROW = 73'
Major Collector - Type 2
ADT = 5,000 TO 8,500
45'
BORDER
AREA
14'14'
BORDER
AREA
Major Collector - Type 1
ROW = 73'
ADT = 2,500 TO 5,000
14.5' 14.5'8'8'
PA
R
K
I
N
G
PA
R
K
I
N
G
37'
BORDER
AREA
14'14'
BORDER
AREA
ROW = 65'
10.5' 10.5'8'8'
PA
R
K
I
N
G
PA
R
K
I
N
G
Residential Collector
ADT > 800
1
1
1
1
NOTE:
1 PAVEMENT MEASUREMENTS
FACE OF CURB.
FACE OF CURB TO
Collector Cross-Sections
Figure 2-2c
Pa
t
h
:
C
:
\
U
s
e
r
s
\
f
r
i
e
l
l
o
l
\
D
e
s
k
t
o
p
\
2
-
2
d
C
r
o
s
s
-
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
m
x
d
2-8
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
6'6'11'
BORDER
AREA
11'
28'
ROW = 50' MINIMUM
BORDER
AREA
PA
R
K
PA
R
K
1
NOTES:
FACE OF CURB TO FACE OF CURB.
ADT < 800
Residential Local Street
1 PAVEMENT MEASUREMENTS ARE
16'
Residential Cross-Sections
Figure 2-2d
Pa
t
h
:
C
:
\
U
s
e
r
s
\
f
r
i
e
l
l
o
l
\
D
e
s
k
t
o
p
\
2
-
2
d
C
r
o
s
s
-
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
m
x
d
2-9
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
Functional Classification Volume Ranges
Local Streets < 2,500 vpd
Collector Streets (2 lane with Parking) 2,500 to 5,000 vpd
Collector Streets (3 lane) 5,000 to 8,500 vpd
Collector Streets (4 lane) 8,500 to 12,500 vpd
Minor Arterials 12,500 to 24,000 vpd
Major Arterials 24,000 to 36,000 vpd
Freeways/Expressways > 36,000 vpd
Existing Area Roadways 2.2
The City of Georgetown is largely served by a combination of State, County and
local roadway facilities, including Interstate Highway (IH) 35, State Highways (SH)
29, 195 and 130, Farm-to-Market (FM) 2243 (Leander Road) and Williams Drive.
The City has the authority to provide permitting and design oversight for state and
county roads; but many of the primary design and maintenance responsibilities lie
with others. Existing travel lane
designations based on the 2010
CAMPO roadway network are
shown in Figures 2-3 and 2-3a.
Interstate Highway 35
IH 35 is the only interstate facility
serving the Georgetown area. This
facility bisects the city north-south
and continues from the United
States/Mexico border north to the
United States/Canada border. IH
35 connects the City to the Austin urbanized area to the south and the Waco/Killeen
urbanized area to the north. Access to and from IH 35 is provided by grade-
separated interchanges and frontage roads on the east and west sides of the facility
throughout most of its length within the Georgetown area.
2-10
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
§¨¦35
§¨¦35
Georgetown
Round Rock
Cedar Park
¬«29
Weir
¬«195
¬«29
Lake Georgetown WIL
L
I
A
M
S
D
R
IN
N
E
R
L
O
O
P
UNIVERSITY AVE
D
B
W
O
O
D
R
D
AIR
P
O
R
T
R
D
S
U
N
C
I
T
Y
B
L
V
D
SHELL RD
DEL W
E
B
B
B
L
V
D
Existing 2010 Travel Lanes
(Based on 2010 CAMPO Network)
²0 1 2 3 40.5 Miles
Figure 2-3
WESTINGH
O
U
S
E
R
D
Georgetown
Georgetown ETJ
Weir
Cedar Park
Round Rock
Lakes
Roads
LANES
2
3
4
5
6
Pa
t
h
:
G
:
\
0
5
7
3
.
0
0
3
.
0
0
1
F
i
n
a
l
i
z
e
O
T
P
U
p
d
a
t
e
s
\
0
7
.
0
0
C
A
D
D
\
R
e
v
i
s
e
d
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
s
_
2
0
1
5
-
0
2
-
0
3
\
2
-
3
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
2
0
1
0
T
r
a
v
e
l
L
a
n
e
s
.
m
x
d
RM 2243
FM 1460
FM 971
2-11
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
§¨¦35
§¨¦35
Georgetown
Inner Loop
C
R
1
1
0
University A
v
e
Wi
l
l
i
a
m
s
D
r
.
Weir Rd
Au
s
t
i
n
A
v
e
FM 1460
FM 2243
2010 Travel Lanes
Central Business District
(Based on 2010 CAMPO Network)
²0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1Miles
Figure 2-3aGeorgetown
Georgetown ETJ
Lakes
Rivers & Streams
Roads
LANES
2
3
4
5
6
Pa
t
h
:
G
:
\
0
5
7
3
.
0
0
3
.
0
0
1
F
i
n
a
l
i
z
e
O
T
P
U
p
d
a
t
e
s
\
0
7
.
0
0
C
A
D
D
\
R
e
v
i
s
e
d
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
s
_
2
0
1
5
-
0
2
-
0
3
\
2
-
3
a
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
T
r
a
v
e
l
L
a
n
e
s
-
Z
o
o
m
e
d
.
m
x
d
2-12
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
IH 35 is a four- and six-lane divided interstate highway with shoulders for most of its
length through Georgetown. The posted speed limit is 70 mph and, for safety
reasons, trucks are prohibited in the far left lane. Both the mainlanes and the
shoulder are asphalt with concrete barriers separating the directions of traffic. On the
northern and southern edges of the City there are limited frontage roads.
State Highways
There are a total of three state highway (SH) facilities within the study area: SH 29
(through the center of town –
running east-west), SH 195 (north of
the City – running east-west) and SS
26 and SS 158; through the CBD –
running north-south). These
roadways are officially TxDOT
roadways and TxDOT continues to
maintain and have primary
jurisdictional control of them, while
the City has limited access
management oversight.
SH 29 facilitates east-west
travel and is a route for
people traveling through
Georgetown from West
Texas to the Central Texas
region. SH 29 serves as a
primary access route to
Southwestern University
and the City’s CBD. SH 29
varies from a two-lane rural
facility to a four- and five-
lane facility in the central
city area.
2-13
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
SH 195 runs east-west along the northern boundary of the City. The roadway was
upgraded to a divided 4 lane rural thoroughfare in 2009. Construction continues
north of Georgetown.
Austin Avenue is the primary north-south route through the City (east and west of
IH 35). This roadway was initially constructed as Business 35 and provided the local,
parallel bypass to IH 35, allowing the City to develop outside of the direct path of IH
35. As the area has grown, Austin Avenue has become the primary access route into
and out of the CBD. Austin Avenue provides primary access to significant activity
centers, including the Georgetown City Hall and City offices, Williamson County
Court House and other county offices, San Gabriel Park, and Georgetown High
School. The route begins south of the City at the Inner Loop exit from northbound
IH 35. While Inner Loop goes to the east, Austin Avenue continues north into the
city beyond SH 29 and Williams Drive and eventually terminates at Inner Loop.
Farm-to-Market and Ranch-to-Market Roads
There is little difference between Farm-to-Market (FM) and Ranch-to-Market (RM)
roads, and the City of Georgetown has both within the city limits including FM 971,
FM 972, and FM 1460, and RM 2243. These thoroughfares provide access to major
roadways and accommodate
traffic between rural areas
of the community and the
denser, developed areas.
As, Farm-to-Market roads
were originally designated
for farming communities
east of US 281 and used
for the movement of
agricultural and farm goods,
whereas the Ranch-to-
Market roads were located in the ranch lands west of US 281 and used for the
movement of livestock. Both designations provide access between residential and
commercial areas.
2-14
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
Typically, these roadways are two-lane facilities without shoulders. The exception is
Williams Drive, which originates at Austin Avenue and continues west over IH 35,
terminating in the community of Andice, Texas. The section of Williams Drive
within the City of Georgetown is a
four-lane roadway with
continuous center turn lane and is
the primary route for drivers
traveling east into the City. RM
2243, Leander Road, is largely a
two-lane roadway that provides a
critical link between the City of
Georgetown and the cities of
Leander and Cedar Park.
FM1460 is also a critical north-south link between the cities of Round Rock and
Georgetown. The roadway was recently widened from a two-lane facility to four
lanes. There are a number of large residential developments along this roadway, as
well as higher education campuses and a hospital. The majority of this roadway is
under the jurisdiction of Round Rock but does serve as an important north/south
corridor for Georgetown. FM(s) 971 and 972 provide rural access to the City from
communities east of Georgetown. These roads have limited usage, but as the city
grows northeast these roads will become heavily traveled. FM 971 is slated for re-
alignment, widening as well as intersection redesign at Austin Avenue. Northwest
Boulevard will be extended over the IH 35 main lanes so that these two roadways
create a four-way intersection at Austin Avenue. FM 971 will be widened from
Austin Avenue to SH 130.
Local Roads
Local roads form the backbone of the City’s Thoroughfare network and service the
majority of travel needs within the City. Local roads are traditionally designed as two-
lane facilities with posted speed limits of 30 MPH with lower traffic volumes. Inner
Loop and DB Wood Road/Shell Road, located on the east and west sides of the City
are two exceptions. Inner Loop is a two-lane facility with limited shoulders on both
2-15
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
sides that forms the
eastern loop around the
City and provides
alternative access for
drivers traveling to the
eastern portions of the
City, SH 29 or SH 130. It
begins south of
Georgetown at Austin
Avenue and continues east
around the City,
terminating at the Lakeway Drive/IH 35 intersection and providing direct access to
numerous county facilities. Shell Road/D B Wood Road is a significant north-south
roadway serving western areas of Georgetown and Williamson County. Shell Road
begins at SH 195 and continues south to Williams Drive where it becomes D B
Wood Road to SH 29. The road is a two-lane facility and provides a north-south
route, in addition to IH 35 and Ronald Regan Boulevard.
Inherit in the proper function of the City’s local roads is connectivity. As defined in
the City’s UDC chapter 12.03.030, Local Street Connectivity, “The street network
for any subdivision with internal roads or access to any public road shall achieve a
connectivity ratio of not less than 1.20, measured within the subdivision unless the
Director determines that this requirement is impractical due to topography and/or
natural features”.
Existing Traffic Signal Locations 2.3
Traffic signals facilitate traffic control on a system wide basis and have a significant
impact on the overall roadway and intersection capacity. There are a total of 53
signalized intersections within the City of Georgetown; 35 under the jurisdictional
control of TxDOT and 18 under the control of the City. These signals are primarily
located at major intersections along arterials, collectors, and frontage roads. Specific
locations are shown in Figure 2-4. Over the past decade, the City has been acquiring
2-16
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
control over a number of the existing traffic signals that are part of the overall traffic
signal system. According to the 2010 census, the City of Georgetown had a
population of less than 50,000 residents and therefore will not acquire jurisdictional
control over the entire traffic signal system.
Since the City will not gain control of the system in its entirety until 2020, there is
time to plan for construction of a traffic signal system center that can house all
traffic signal functions and provide for one general location from which
modifications can be made and responses handled. From that system center, traffic
signals can be interlinked, providing real time video for incident management and/or
emergency response. Startup costs for an integrated system can be significant. Once
implemented, operations and maintenance costs can be reduced due to shorter
response times, mobility increased and emergency response and traffic management
operations improved through coordinated signal timing).
2-17
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
§¨¦35
§¨¦35
Georgetown
¬«29
¬«195
Lake Georgetown W
I
L
L
I
A
M
S
D
R
IN
N
E
R
L
O
O
P
UNIVERSITY
A
V
E
D
B
W
O
O
D
R
D
AIR
P
O
R
T
R
D
S
U
N
C
I
T
Y
B
L
V
D
SHELL R
D
DEL WE
B
B
B
L
V
D
N
A
W
G
R
I
M
E
S
B
L
V
D
Existing Traffic Signal Locations
²0 0.5 1 1.5 2Miles
Figure 2-4
RM 2243
FM 971
Local Roads
Lakes
Georgetown
Georgetown ETJ
City of Georgetown Traffic Signal
TxDOT Traffic Signal
Pa
t
h
:
G
:
\
0
5
7
3
.
0
0
3
.
0
0
1
F
i
n
a
l
i
z
e
O
T
P
U
p
d
a
t
e
s
\
0
7
.
0
0
C
A
D
D
\
R
e
v
i
s
e
d
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
s
_
2
0
1
5
-
0
2
-
0
3
\
2
-
4
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
S
i
g
n
a
l
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
m
x
d
FM 1460
2-18
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
Existing Traffic Generators 2.4
The location of major traffic generators must be considered when reviewing the
traffic network. These generators have significant influence over traffic volumes and
traffic patterns. Major generators within the City include both Williamson County
and City of Georgetown government offices, the Georgetown Municipal Airport,
Southwestern University, a number of Georgetown Independent School District
(GISD) facilities, City Parks and Recreation areas, major employers and major
commercial centers. The major traffic generators within the City are shown on
Figure 2-5. A number of the identified generators are discussed in the following
sections.
City of Georgetown
There are a number of City facilities that are considered major traffic generators,
including the following:
City Hall
Georgetown Municipal Complex (downtown)
Georgetown City Facility (along Industrial Avenue)
Georgetown Public Library
Municipal Airport
Municipal Court
Each of these facilities
generate traffic from the
workers who office there
and the citizens doing
business there. While each
of these facilities has a
different peak travel
pattern, they all contribute
to the traffic on the
surrounding roadway
networks.
2-19
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
å
å
å
å
åå
å
åå
å
å
å
ååå
å
å
Æa
"ý
ï
ï
ï
jg
ï
l
²·
²·
²·
²·
jg
®v
kïïlll
l
ï
ï
ï lïjg
ï
ï
ï
ï
ï
ï
ï
ï
ï
ï
ïï
ï
ïï
ï
ï ï
ï
ï
ï
ï
§¨¦35
§¨¦35
Georgetown
¬«29
¬«195
Lake Georgetown
Existing Major Traffic Generators and Development Constraints
²0 1 2Miles
Figure 2-5
Georgetown
Georgetown ETJ
Lakes
Local Roads
l Govt Facilities
jg Recreation Center
®v Medical Facilities
ï Parks / Recreation
Æa Park & Ride
"ý Post Office
²·Retail Centers
k Universities
å Schools
RM 2243 FM 1460
FM 971
University Av
e
.
Inner Loop
C
R
1
1
0
CR 150
D
B
W
o
o
d
R
d
.
Willia
m
s
D
r
.
Airp
o
r
t
R
d
.
Shell Rd.Del We
b
b
B
l
v
d
.
S
u
n
C
i
t
y
B
l
v
d
.
Pa
t
h
:
G
:
\
0
5
7
3
.
0
0
3
.
0
0
1
F
i
n
a
l
i
z
e
O
T
P
U
p
d
a
t
e
s
\
0
7
.
0
0
C
A
D
D
\
R
e
v
i
s
e
d
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
s
_
2
0
1
5
-
0
2
-
0
3
\
2
-
5
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
M
a
j
o
r
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
o
r
s
.
m
x
d
2-20
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
Williamson County Courthouse and
Offices
The City is the heart of the
County, and the Williamson
County Court House sits on the
square in the core of Georgetown.
Being the seat of county
government, the City experiences
an influx of County-related traffic.
In addition to the courthouse,
there are other county facilities
concentrated in the area
surrounding the square, including the Tax Assessor office, Sheriff’s office,
Williamson County Justice Center, and the County Jail. The other concentrated area
of county facilities is along SE Inner Loop. The Central Maintenance facility, the
Juvenile Services Center, and the County Animal Shelter are all within close
proximity of one another.
Georgetown Independent School District
There are a total of 18 school campuses that comprise the GISD, including ten
elementary schools, three middle schools, three high schools, and two alternative
campuses serving over 10,500 students during the 2013/2014 academic year. The
GISD also operates the Central Administration Office located on Lakeway
Boulevard near Williams Drive. The location of each school is shown in Table 2.2.
Through the passage of the 2010 Bond Package, McCoy Elementary School was
relocated, East View High School was expanded to a four-year high school, and
funds were allocated for the construction of an 11th elementary school and a 4th
Middle School. In addition, plans are being developed and land has been acquired for
a fourth high school near the intersection of Williams Drive and Ronald Reagan
Boulevard.
The majority of elementary and middle school students arrive on school grounds via
school bus between 7:15 am and 7:30 am (elementary school) and 7:45 am to 8:15
am (middle school). The number of students departing via school bus is typically
2-21
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
smaller due to after-school activities; however, the number of buses remains the
same. The elementary school bus departures are more concentrated than arrivals;
typically departing between 3:00 pm and 3:30 pm. The middle school departures
typically range from 4:00 pm to 4:30 pm.
GISD provides school bus service to the three high schools; however, the number of
students utilizing the buses is less than elementary and middle schools, due to
student drivers and before- and after-school activities. Student arrival (via bus or
private automobile) typically occurs between 8:00 am to 9:00 am with departures
occurring between 4:00 pm and 4:30 pm.
The two alternative schools that are part of the GISD system are the Georgetown
Alternative Program (GAP) and the Williamson County Academy.
School Campus Address
Carver Elementary 1200 West 17th Street
Cooper Elementary 1921 NE Inner Loop
Ford Elementary 210 Woodlake Drive
Frost Elementary 711 Lakeway Drive
McCoy Elementary 401 Bellaire Drive
Mitchell Elementary 1601 Rockride Lane
Pickett Elementary 1100 Thousand Oaks Boulevard
Purl Elementary 1700 Laurel Street
Village Elementary 400 Village Commons
Williams Elementary 507 East University Avenue
Benold Middle School 3407 Northwest Boulevard
Forbes Middle School 1911 Northeast Inner Loop
Tippit Middle School 1601 Leander Road
East View High School 4490 East University Avenue
Georgetown High School 2211 North Austin Avenue
Richarte High School 2295 North Austin Avenue
Georgetown Alternative Program (GAP) 502 Patriot Way
Williamson County Academy 200 Wilco Way
2-22
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
St. David’s Georgetown Hospital
St. David’s Georgetown Hospital has been a
community healthcare resource for the
citizens of Georgetown and Williamson
County for over 60 years. The hospital
provides comprehensive healthcare with
emergency services, in-patient/out-patient
services, rehabilitation, and maternity and
newborn services. The 98-bed hospital
facility is located at 2000 Scenic Drive, right
in the heart of the city and employs over 500
full-time people.
Southwestern University
Founded in 1835,
Southwestern University is
part of Georgetown’s
history. The 701-acre
campus is located east of
the central business district
along SH 29 (University
Avenue). The campus has
limited cross-campus
roadway access and has no
plans for building future
access points. The student population is approximately 1,500, and approximately
83% of the students live on campus. There are approximately 450 facility and staff
serving the student population. There is ample parking located at various locations
throughout the campus. The University is a major traffic generator and the vehicles
enter and exit the site at varying times throughout the day.
Major Developments
With the City’s unprecedented growth, there have been major developments – both
residential and commercial/retail – that have been completed in the last several
2-23
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
years. These developments have had a significant impact on the City’s roadway
network.
Both the Wolf Ranch Town Center and The Rivery Development have brought
significant retail development and
traffic to the Southbound IH 35
Frontage Road and SH 29. The
Rivery Development is a 280-acre
multi-use development located
between the Southbound IH 35
Frontage Road and the San Gabriel
River. The Rivery Development
includes a regional municipal park
along the riverfront of the San
Gabriel River. Wolf Ranch Town
Center, located just south of The Rivery Development fronting Southbound IH 35
Frontage Road and SH 29, is a an open-air community center with over 80 retail
stores and restaurants, an interpretive nature trail, ponds, and scenic areas.
Since 2000, the City of
Georgetown has
experienced increased
residential development
activity, primarily in the
western part of the City.
Sun City Texas is an on-
going residential
development located
along Williams Drive.
This age-restricted
community provides a number of on-site amenities, including golf and residential life
activities. The traffic generated from this site tends to be lower than a typical
suburban residential development. Many of the residents stay on-site and travel via
2-24
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
golf cart or some other form of “club car”. Another large residential community,
Georgetown Village, is currently under construction. Ultimately, this community will
have over 3,200 residential units with a number of municipal and community
amenities such as parks, pools, and trails.
Georgetown Airport Master Plan 2.5
The Airport Master Plan currently in effect was accepted by the City Council in 2005
and is expected to be revised in 2015. The purpose of the City of Georgetown
Airport Master Plan is to inventory existing infrastructure within the City of
Georgetown City limits, identify design and compliance deficiencies, evaluate future
program requirements and develop a ten year implementation plan. The plan also
references existing guidelines, land development requirements and Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) requirements.
Existing Daily Traffic Volumes 2.6
Existing daily traffic volumes were collected from the City of Georgetown database.
Area wide, existing daily traffic volumes range from well over 100,000 vehicles per
day (VPD) along IH 35 to less than 300 VPD on local roads. These volumes were
projected to 2030 using the CAMPO 2030 Network and are represented on Figures
2-6 and 2-6a. The most heavily traveled roadways are IH 35, Williams Drive, RM
2234, D B Wood Road, Inner Loop, SH 29 and Austin Avenue.
2-25
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
§¨¦35
§¨¦35
Georgetown
Round Rock
Cedar Park
¬«29
Weir
¬«195
¬«29
Lake Georgetown
4900
2300
3200
1300
1200
16000
63100
4700
3100
119000
38900
1200
9000
26700
16500
14300
WIL
L
I
A
M
S
D
R
UNIVERSITY
A
V
E
D
B
W
O
O
D
R
D
AIR
P
O
R
T
R
D
S
U
N
C
I
T
Y
B
L
V
D
SHELL R
D
DEL WE
B
B
B
L
V
D
INNER LOO
P
Projected 2030 Daily Traffic Volumes
(Based on Existing Conditions)
²0 1 2 3 40.5 Miles
Figure 2-6Georgetown
Georgetown ETJ
Round Rock
Weir
Cedar Park
Lakes
Local Roads
Model Network
Pa
t
h
:
G
:
\
0
5
7
3
.
0
0
3
.
0
0
1
F
i
n
a
l
i
z
e
O
T
P
U
p
d
a
t
e
s
\
0
7
.
0
0
C
A
D
D
\
R
e
v
i
s
e
d
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
s
_
2
0
1
5
-
0
2
-
0
3
\
2
-
6
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
D
a
i
l
y
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
V
o
l
u
m
e
s
.
m
x
d
RM 2243
FM 1460
FM 971
23800 Traffic Volumes
2-26
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
§¨¦35
Georgetown
12000
§¨¦35
16000
15
0
0
3900
3
5
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
260
0
13000
300
0
0
25
0
0
0
8
0
0
260
0
0
19000
60
0
0
7400
9000
21
0
0
0
7600
2
8
0
0
2
1
0
0
140
0
47
0
0
0
270
0
RM 2243
FM 1460
FM 971
IN
N
E
R
L
O
O
P
UNIVERSITY AVE
W
I
L
L
I
A
M
S
D
R
S
O
U
T
H
W
E
S
T
E
R
N
B
L
V
D
D
B
W
O
O
D
R
D
Projected 2030 Daily Traffic Volumes
Central Business District
(Based on Existing Conditions)
²0 0.5 10.25 Miles
Figure 2-6a
Georgetown
Georgetown ETJ
Lakes
Rivers & Streams
Model Network
Local Roads
23800 Traffic Volumes
Pa
t
h
:
G
:
\
0
5
7
3
.
0
0
3
.
0
0
1
F
i
n
a
l
i
z
e
O
T
P
U
p
d
a
t
e
s
\
0
7
.
0
0
C
A
D
D
\
R
e
v
i
s
e
d
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
s
_
2
0
1
5
-
0
2
-
0
3
\
2
-
6
a
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
D
a
i
l
y
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
V
o
l
u
m
e
s
-
Z
o
o
m
e
d
.
m
x
d
2-27
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
Existing Traffic Operations 2.7
Existing traffic operations were evaluated once the travel demand model was
updated to account for completed roadway improvements. This updated analysis
includes development-driven roadways, Williamson County and City of Georgetown
2008 Bond Projects, general maintenance and roadway improvement projects. This
analysis took portions of the CAMPO 2035 model, refined it for the Georgetown
area, revised it to reflect completed improvements and conducted a Roadway
Capacity/Intersection Level-of-Service analysis. Capacity is defined as the maximum
number of vehicles that a roadway can accommodate during a particular time period
under prevailing roadway, traffic and control conditions. The qualifying result of a
capacity analysis is identification of Level of Service (LOS) for each roadway.
It is directly related to the volume-to-capacity ratio, as shown in Table 2.3. Similarly,
LOS is calculated for intersections and this criterion is included in Table 2.4. LOS is
a letter designation from “A” to “F” (free flow conditions to heavily congested).
LOS D is generally considered an acceptable LOS; however, the City of Georgetown
recognizes LOS C as the minimum acceptable LOS. Utilizing the techniques outlined
in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) and the traffic data obtained from the
City, LOS was determined for all principal roadways within the City of Georgetown.
Although the City strives for LOS C at all intersections and along all roadways, given
the rapid growth and development, this is difficult to achieve and costly to maintain
especially within a rapidly changing urban area. Most of the roadways and
intersections operate at or above LOS C during the day. It is during the AM and PM
peak periods when the roadways and intersections operate below LOS C (LOS D or
worse) and this primarily occurs along the main travel routes – IH 35 frontage road
intersections, Williams Drive and SH 29. The HCM recommendation to use LOS D
as the threshold should be considered acceptable given the rapidly changing
environment.
2-28
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
Level of
Service
(LOS)
Maximum Volume-to-Capacity Ratio
(V/C) Description Two-Lane
Roadways
Multi-Lane
Roadways Freeways
A 0.10 0.35 0.35
Very low vehicle delays, traffic
signal progression extremely
favorable, free flow most of the
time, most vehicles arrive during
green phase.
B 0.25 0.50 0.50
Good signal progression, more
vehicles are stopped and
experience longer delays compared
to LOS A
C * 0.40 0.65 0.70
Stable flow, fair signal progression,
a significant number of vehicles
stop at traffic signals.
D ** 0.60 0.80 0.85
Congestion noticeable, longer
delays and unfavorable signal
progression, many vehicles stop as
traffic signals.
E 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upper limit of applicable delay,
unstable flow, poor signal
progression, traffic at/near
roadway capacity, frequent cycle
failures.
F >1.00 >1.00 >1.00
Unacceptable delay, extremely
unstable flow, and congestions,
traffic exceeds roadway capacity,
stop-and-go conditions. This is a
theoretical measure, as volume can
only in theory be higher than
capacity.
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000
* According to the City’s UDC, this is the LOS that the City considers acceptable for roadway
or intersection operations.
** According to national standards, this is the LOS at which both roadway and intersection
operations are considered acceptable.
2-29
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
Level of
Service
Delay Range
for Signalized
Intersections
(sec/veh)
Delay Range
for
Unsignalized
Intersections
(sec/veh)
Description
A <10 <10 Good progression and short cycle lengths
B >10 and <20 >10 and <15 Good progression or short cycle lengths,
more vehicle stops
C >20 and <35 >15 and <25 Fair progression and/or longer cycle
lengths, some cycle failures
D >35 and <55 >25 and <35 Congestion becomes noticeable, high
volume to capacity ratio
E >55 and <80 >35 and <50
Limit of acceptable delay, poor
progression, long cycles, and/or high
volume
F >80 >50 Unacceptable to drivers, volume greater
then capacity
The results for the 2030 network system are shown in Figure 2-7. Under the existing
conditions analysis, the majority of roadways within the study area operate at LOS D
or better. The following are roadway sections are operating at LOS E or F; thus, they
are considered at or above roadway capacity:
Portions of IH 35 (both mainlanes and frontage roads)
Williams Drive between IH 35 and Lakeway Drive
Del Webb Boulevard from Williams Drive to Sun City Boulevard
Sun City Boulevard from Del Webb Boulevard to Trail of the Flower
County Road 143 just north of SH 195
County Road 972 east of IH 35
Portions of Austin Avenue and Church Street within the CBD
The existing operating conditions are much the same as the 2004 OTP, when
portions of IH 35 and Williams Drive were at LOS E or F. During the 2004 analysis,
portions of SH 29 (both east and west of IH 35), FM 1460, Airport Road, Serenada
Drive and all of SH 195 were each at LOS E or F. Since that time, the Williams
Drive and northern Austin Avenue corridors have continued to degrade due to
increasing traffic volumes. Both of the corridors will be difficult to upgrade with
added capacity given the local land uses and historical structures. Instead of
2-30
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
improving these corridors, consideration should be given to providing alternative
travel routes.
2-31
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
§¨¦35
§¨¦35
Georgetown
Round Rock
Cedar Park
¬«29
Weir
¬«195
¬«29
Lake Georgetown
WI
L
L
I
A
M
S
D
R
IN
N
E
R
L
O
O
P
UNIVERSIT
Y
A
V
E
D
B
W
O
O
D
R
D
AIR
P
O
R
T
R
D
S
U
N
C
I
T
Y
B
L
V
D
SHELL RD
DEL WE
B
B
B
L
V
D
2030 Roadway Level of Service
(Based on Existing Conditions)
²0 1 2 3 40.5 Miles
Figure 2-7
FM 971
WESTINGH
O
U
S
E
R
D
Georgetown
Georgetown ETJ
Lakes
Weir
Cedar Park
Round Rock
Roads
LOS A
LOS B
LOS C
LOS D
LOS E
LOS F
Pa
t
h
:
G
:
\
0
5
7
3
.
0
0
3
.
0
0
1
F
i
n
a
l
i
z
e
O
T
P
U
p
d
a
t
e
s
\
0
7
.
0
0
C
A
D
D
\
R
e
v
i
s
e
d
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
s
_
2
0
1
5
-
0
2
-
0
3
\
2
-
7
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
L
e
v
e
l
-
o
f
-
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
.
m
x
d
FM 1460RM 2243
2-32
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
Planned Transportation Improvements 2.8
The following is a brief discussion regarding the improvements highlighted in the
2004 OTP and the new improvements included in this updated OTP.
As presented previously, there are three agencies responsible for roadway
improvements within the study limits: City of Georgetown, Williamson County, and
TxDOT. In addition to traditional city funds, the City also has a Transportation
Enhancement Corporation (GTEC).
GTEC is an appointed corporation that promotes economic and community
development through the payment for roads, drainage, and other transportation
improvement projects. GTEC receives funding through the quarter-cent sales tax
levy called “4B” and is dedicated to roadway improvements. This tax must be re-
approved through city-wide vote every four years. The citizens of Georgetown re-
approved the tax during the November 2010 election cycle. GTEC has previously
approved and completed the following projects:
Installation of a traffic signal at SH 29 and Wolf Ranch Parkway
Construction of CR 265 E and CR 265 W of SH 29
Shell Road widening to four lanes from Williams Drive and Shell Spur
While GTEC has become an important funding source for the City of Georgetown,
there are legislative limits with regard to the use of the funds. The 4B funds can be
used for tourism, water projects, sports stadiums, parks, affordable housing, and
infrastructure projects. The Legislature has restricted the use of 4B funds for retail
developments; however, it can be used for the infrastructure for retail developments.
Since transportation funding became a critical issue on both the national and state
level, Williamson County has taken an aggressive approach to funding roadway
projects. Since 2004, there have been two bond elections totaling nearly 600 million
dollars. Additionally, the County has previously committed money to a number of
local projects including:
2-33
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
Georgetown Inner Loop – The project was proposed to extend the Inner
Loop between Austin Avenue and SH 29 East. This project has been
completed.
Parmer Lane/County Road 268 – The proposed route was to be constructed
from FM 1431 north to ultimately intersect with IH 35. This project has been
completed as Ronald Reagan Boulevard from FM 1431 to Williams Drive.
Cedar Hollow Road – A left turn lane from Cedar Hollow onto SH 29 was to
be constructed. This project has not been completed.
Chandler Road – This roadway extension project would complete Chandler
Road as a four/six-lane roadway from FM 1460 to SH 95. Some roadway
improvements have been made in conjunction with the completion of SH
130, widening Chandler Road to four lanes immediately east of its
intersection with SH 130, but the remainder of the roadway is still a two-lane
facility from FM 1460 to SH 95.
TxDOT has also made improvements since the adoption of the 2004 plan; however,
with annual budgetary restraints, available state funding has continued to decrease.
One project which has been completed is SH 130. This project is significant to
Georgetown and the entire Central Texas region.
The additional TxDOT roadway projects that have been funded include selected
roadway widening projects, resurfacing projects and intersection improvements.
These projects are beneficial to the area, but do not improve roadway capacity or
corresponding LOS and are, therefore, not considered major planned transportation
improvements for the purposes of the study. Additional planned projects include:
SH 29 – As proposed, the section of roadway in the vicinity of the Wolf
Ranch Development was to be upgraded to a five-lane cross section, to
accommodate the growth and development associated with Wolf Ranch.
This project has been completed.
2-34
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
Williams Drive - Widening to a five-lane cross section northwest of Cedar
Breaks Road. This project has been completed.
FM 1460 - Widening from US 79 (in Round Rock) to Inner Loop, continuing
north to Quail Valley (both in Georgetown). Section of FM 1460 have been
upgraded but the entire project has not been completed; and
RM 2243 (Leander Road) - Widening to four lanes from IH 35 (in
Georgetown) to US 183. Portions of this project have been completed, but
RM 2243 has not been widened in its entirety.
IH 35 Frontage Road – This project includes a number of frontage road
sections to be completed by either Williamson County or the City of
Georgetown. Williamson County has two projects that include the
northbound frontage road from Business 35 to RM 2243 and the second
project is from RM 2243 to SH 29. The City of Georgetown is planning on
completing the northbound frontage road between Williams Drive and
Lakeway Drive.
Planned Projects 2.9
Several of the projects listed previously were never fully initiated or are still in the
planning/construction phases. As such, these projects must be accounted for under
the Planned Projects. Many of the projects listed below, while under the jurisdiction
of one entity, will actually be approved, funded and completed by multiple agencies.
Williamson County and the City of Georgetown are working cooperatively on the
Inner Loop Project. Under the County’s 2006 Bond Program, this project was
initially a Williamson County project but the addition of Sam Houston Avenue has
made this a cooperative effort. As currently planned, the City will reconstruct
portions of Inner Loop between IH 35 and Maple Street. Sam Houston Avenue
intersects Maple Street and provides direct access to SH 130. The section of Inner
Loop to the east of Maple will be improved as a four or five lane facility connecting
to SH 29.
2-35
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
In addition to the roadway, the City is preparing for a potential Transit Oriented
Development (TOD) adjacent to this route. This is important because the location
of the TOD will bring significant development to the roadway, require multi-modal
connections and change existing land use patterns.
TxDOT currently has limited plans for roadways under their jurisdictional control
within the City of Georgetown. The primary project is the construction of a
Northbound IH 35 Frontage Road between RM 2243 and SH 29. This is a project
that is being completed by both Williamson County and TxDOT. Williamson
County wanted to expedite the construction of the road so they are paying for a
portion of the roadway. TxDOT is also completing widening of parts of SH 195.
There are ultimately plans for a number of overpasses but at this time only the
mainlanes are being designed.
3-1
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
This chapter describes the development and validation of the transportation model
used to evaluate existing travel conditions and forecast future travel demand for the
City. This mathematical approach simulates existing traffic patterns and projects
future travel demands, and as a result, is one of the most important tools used in the
transportation planning process.
When transportation planning was in its infancy, simple trend-line analysis was
performed to forecast traffic demands. However, such methods were based on the
existing relationships between land uses and intensities of land use. If land
development patterns changed over time (and most do), forecasts were seldom
reliable.
Historical trend analysis also failed to account for the impact of construction of new
transportation facilities or the improvement of existing facilities. To obtain reliable
estimates of future travel patterns, both the travel simulation models and the
projected land use data must be sensitive to the many quantitative and qualitative
parameters influencing the generation and distribution of trips. These characteristics
and patterns depend largely on the following factors:
Socioeconomic conditions affecting trip production and attraction;
The land-use pattern, including the location and intensity of use; and,
The type, extent, and quality of transportation facilities.
With these factors as input to travel demand models, forecasts of future travel
patterns are made and used to test the adequacy of any proposed transportation
system improvements to serve projected traffic demands. The evaluation of
alternatives by use of the transportation model was a primary factor in developing a
responsive transportation plan for the Georgetown area.
For this study, the regional transportation model, maintained by CAMPO, was used
as the basis for the Georgetown OTP model. Utilizing the CAMPO zone structure,
zones were further subdivided to enable the model to be focused at a local level..
3-2
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
The relationship of the models and their inputs and outputs are illustrated in Figure
3-1.
Demographic assumptions contained in the regional CAMPO model were further
refined, and better allocated to reflect actual development as well as growth patterns
within the Georgetown ETJ. City Staff worked with the Consultant Team to develop
the most accurate demographic allocations for the model, which, in turn, will result
3-3
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
in more accurate model trip predictions and roadway facility assignments. To further
enhance the reliability of the model, potential route designations were evaluated to
determine those roadways most commonly traveled.
Data Analysis and Forecasting 3.1
The TDM requires inputs such as regional socioeconomic and demographic data,
roadway and land use characteristics, person and vehicle trip data, travel time and
other impedance factors. A major portion of the data inputs came from the regional
transportation model and network maintained by the CAMPO.
The CAMPO model and network contained population, household, and
employment data for the CAMPO study area, which included the Georgetown
region. To accommodate Georgetown needs, the consultant gathered demographic
data from the City of Georgetown for Williamson County and maintained CAMPO's
demographic data for the regional model and network. Next, the Traffic Analysis
Zone (TAZ) structure was refined within Williamson County to include several new
zones within the Georgetown study area; while the zones outside of Williamson
County were aggregated to center the focus of the model analysis on the
Georgetown study area. With the revised TAZ structure for the travel model, the
population, household, and employment data was then assigned to the respective
zones. A summary of the study area's demographic data is provided in Table 3.1.
Variable 2010 2030
Population (ETJ) 89,954 289,481
HH (Dwelling Units) 31,921 102,725
Employment 16,737 69,580
Traffic Analysis Zones 3.2
Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) define geographic areas (typically the size of census
block groups), which are used to relate travel demand to socioeconomic
characteristics. For each TAZ, population, dwelling units, total employment, retail
employment, and school attendance were developed for the base year of 2010. The
3-4
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
resulting traffic zone system is shown in Figure 3-2. There are a total of 60 internal
zones (within the Georgetown study area) and 714 additional zones comprising of
the entire CAMPO region. That totals 774 zones in the analysis area.
3-5
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
2010 Traffic Analysis Zone System
²0 4 8 12 162Miles
Figure 3-2
Roads TAZs
Georgetown TAZs
Georgetown
Round Rock
Weir
AUSTIN
Cedar Park
Lakes
Pa
t
h
:
G
:
\
0
5
7
3
.
0
0
3
.
0
0
1
F
i
n
a
l
i
z
e
O
T
P
U
p
d
a
t
e
s
\
0
7
.
0
0
C
A
D
D
\
R
e
v
i
s
e
d
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
s
_
2
0
1
4
_
1
2
_
1
1
\
3
-
2
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
Z
o
n
e
S
y
s
t
e
m
.
m
x
d
3-6
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
The next part of the Georgetown travel model development was the refinement of
the CAMPO transportation network to provide more focus for the Georgetown
study area. The CAMPO network contained all primary freeways, arterials, and some
collector roadways for the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) region. The
network within the Georgetown study area was updated to include all freeways,
major and minor arterials, collectors, and some regionally significant local roadways.
The consultant then verified roadway lanes and posted speed limits within the
Georgetown area. As a result, the Georgetown TDM provided a stronger focus for
analyzing transportation conditions in their study area.
Ultimately, a travel model for the Georgetown study area was developed that
contained an updated transportation network (ready for coding proposed
transportation improvements) population, household and employment data based on
CAMPO's and Georgetown's current and projected statistics. The consultant then
conducted an initial travel model run, and utilized this run to verify that the model
was replicating current year conditions (i.e. demographics, traffic volumes, and traffic
speeds). The model did replicate current conditions within a particular confidence
interval (described later in this chapter), and was validated to continue with
forecasting future travel patterns.
Travel Demand Model Development Overview 3.3
The Georgetown TDM is comprised of a series of mathematical equations that
simulate travel across the overall transportation network. This macroscopic process
encompasses the four (4) primary steps taken to estimate travel demand from a given
land use and transportation network as shown previously in Figure 3-3. A detailed
description of this process can be found in the following section. In general, the four
steps in this approach are as follows:
1. Trip generation is the estimation of the number of trip-ends for each zone
within the model or the number of trip ends generated in (productions) and
attracted to (attractions) each traffic analysis zone. Each trip on the regional
highway system has both an origin and a destination. In this fashion, each trip is
defined by two trip ends, one being a production and one being an attraction;
3-7
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
2. Trip distribution estimates the number of trips
between each zone pair which is accomplished
by a mathematical trip distribution (gravity)
model. The gravity model is so named because
its basic form follows the mathematical formula
Isaac Newton developed to approximate the
pull of gravity. In general terms, this model
suggests that the frequency of trip interchange
between zone pairs is directly related to the
number of productions and attractions in each
zone, and inversely related to the travel time
between them;
3. Modal split provides the prediction of the
number of trips made by each zone pair by
different modes. Prior to the assignment process the combined 24-hour person-
trip transit table is factored to produce 24-hour peak and off-peak person-trip
tables and a peak 3-hour person-trip table; and
4. Traffic assignment evaluates the amount of travel (or number of trips) that is
loaded onto the transportation network through path-building and is used to
determine network performance. Transit Assignments may also be evaluated in
this step and is used to evaluate a person’s ability to walk between transit stops
and trip origin/destinations. The resulting transit person-trip tables are then
assigned to the appropriate off-peak or peak transit networks.
Existing Roadway Network 3.4
The determination of zone-to-zone travel times, as utilized in the gravity model, and
the assignment of traffic to a network of streets and highways, requires a simulation
of the transportation network by describing roadway sections and intersections in
numerical or digital terms. The City of Georgetown provided a digital city street
network, which was integrated into the CAMPO network and provided the basis for
the Georgetown network. Each intersection, referred to as a "node", is assigned a
unique number and is connected to adjacent intersections. The section of street
3-8
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
between nodes is referred to as a "link". Each link in a network system contains
information regarding distance, speed, number of lanes, functional classification, and
capacity characteristics. For each network link, posted speed limits and number of
lanes was field verified. Traffic capacity for each link was calculated based on the
number of lanes and functional classification.
In addition, traffic analysis zones were represented by "centroids", and the
connection between TAZs and the road network are represented by special links
called "centroid connectors." Total travel time between any pair of traffic zones
consists of the sum of the travel times for all links traversed.
Existing Planning Data 3.5
Travel demand is greatly influenced by the pattern of development or land use in the
study area. Changes in land use create new travel demand or modify existing
patterns. A certain and measurable relationship exists between trip-making and land
use and demographic data. Existing socioeconomic data, including population,
number of dwelling units, total employment, retail employment, and school
attendance, were used as input variables for the transportation model to estimate the
number of trips produced by and attracted to the development within each traffic
zone. Land uses, as they existed in each TAZ in the year 2000, is presented at the
end of this chapter.
Trip Generation 3.6
Trip generation models estimate the number of trips that begin or end in a zone
without identifying where the other ends of these trips are located, which is the
function of the trip distribution model. Two types of trip generation models were
developed: trip production models and trip attraction models. These models were
stratified into three trip purposes: Homebased-Work, Homebased-Other, and Non-
Homebased. For the two types of homebased trips, trip productions refer to the
home end of the trip, and trip attractions refer to the non-home end of the trip. For
non-homebased trips, trip productions and trip attractions refer to the origin and
destination of the trip; respectively. Initial computer runs utilized multiple regression
equations borrowed from travel demand models developed for other similar areas.
3-9
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
Socioeconomic data including population, dwelling units, total employment, retail
employment, and school attendance were used as independent variables to compute
production and attractions. However, modifications were made to the equations
during the calibration process, described in more detail in a following section of this
report.
Trip Distribution Models 3.7
Once the numbers of trips emanating from a zone were estimated by the trip
production models, distribution models were developed to distribute them among
the trip attractions in the other zones. A gravity model was used to distribute trips.
This model employs two relationships, the first of which is indirect. The shorter the
travel time to the destination zone, the greater the number of trips distributed to it
from the origin zone. The second relationship is a direct one. The more attractions
there are in a destination zone, the more trips distributed to it from the origin zone.
Relative distribution rates express the effect that spatial separation has on trip
interchanges. These factors are measures of the impedance to inter-zonal travel due
to the separation between zones. In effect, they measure the probability of trip
making at each one-minute increment of travel time. In traditional travel demand
models, traffic counts are collected at external stations to use in the calibration
process. The traffic assignment values at the external stations in the Georgetown
model used to calibrate the model are derived from the "super regional" model
developed for the entire study area. A subarea analysis was conducted within
TransCAD to identify which trips from the super-regional TDM were traveling to
which TAZs in the Georgetown study area. This subarea analysis was used to
generate the External-External (E-E), Internal-External (I-E), and External-Internal
(E-I) splits in trips to and from the external stations.
Traffic Assignment 3.8
The traffic assignment model determines which route the trips take to get from the
origin zone to the destination zone. Traffic assignments were made using an
equilibrium capacity restraint technique. This technique consists of an iterative series
of all-or nothing assignments where travel times are adjusted to reflect delays
3-10
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
encountered due to congestion. As a result of these time adjustments, the loading of
different iterations may be assigned to different paths. Each assignment load after
the initial iteration is combined with the previous load to minimize the impedance of
each trip until equilibrium is reached. In summary, equilibrium occurs when no trip
can be made by an alternate path without increasing the total travel time of all trips
on the network.
External travel consists of three types of trips, external-external, internal-external and
external-internal. External-external trips are trips that pass through the entire study
area without making a stop. External-internal and internal-external trips are those
having one end of the trip inside of the study area and the other end outside of the
study area. The trips that have one or more ends outside the study area are captured
by traffic counts at the study area boundary. These trips are represented in the model
at External Stations, which are simply locations where major highways enter or exit
the study area.
Once all of the base models were developed, the models were validated using the
following procedure:
1. Apply production and attraction models (including external-internal) to existing
(2000) socioeconomic data to obtain zonal productions and attractions;
2. Distribute zonal productions and attractions with gravity model;
3. Add external-external trips to internal and external-internal trips resulting from
gravity model distributions;
4. Assign total vehicle trips to base year (2000) network and compare model
volumes to existing traffic counts;
5. Adjust trip production and attraction models if necessary;
6. Adjust external traffic models if necessary;
7. Adjust gravity model distribution rates if necessary;
8. Adjust highway network if necessary; and,
9. Repeat steps 1 through 8 until models are validated.
3-11
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
Additional Data Analysis and Forecasting 3.9
In order to produce greater detail from the base travel demand model, the team
conducted additional post processing, using the 5D process. The 5D’s – Density,
Diversity, Design, and Distance/Destination – were developed from over 50
national case studies completed by MPOs, Council of Governments, and Federal
agencies looking at the effects that these basic characteristics have on transit
ridership. Specifically, a majority of these case studies are being aggregated in the
NCHRP Report 08-61 “Travel Demand Forecasting: Parameters and Techniques.”
In the 5D mode choice each factor affects ridership according to elasticity factors.
For instance the closer a person is to transit the more likely they are to ride transit.
These factors are then used to determine travel times and used to estimate ridership.
The process adds an additional detail to the person to vehicle trip conversion factor
that exists within the Travel Demand Model. The process was developed as an
additional layer to the person to vehicle trip conversion factor that exists within the
Travel Demand Model since many of these elements are not accounted for in the
current Travel Demand Model.
The TDM produces person trips for the entire region then distributes these trips
amongst all travel modes (auto, transit, bicycle, and walk), based primarily on travel
time and cost.
Distance/Destination
After each model run, predicted travel times were used to generate trip tables of
constrained travel times (often called skims). These skims were used as input into
a mode choice routine and compared with transit travel times. These travel times
were used to evaluate the likelihood that individuals will select transit over a
personal vehicle based on the total travel time of the trip. The distance factor
also looks at the availability of alternative modes near the traveler’s beginning or
end point.
Density
Each demographic scenario contains household and employment density which
plays a major role in the time it takes to get to a transit station. Less dense
3-12
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
developments often have fewer streets and larger lot sizes which translate to
reduced access to transit.
Diversity
The diversity factor evaluates the balance of housing and jobs, in the vicinity of
the traveler, as well as demographic inputs, such as the number of available
vehicles per household, to determine if travelers are more or less likely to be
transit-dependent.
Design
Developments that have a mix of uses (i.e., residential, employment, retail, etc.)
within walking or biking distance from each other have the ability to reduce
overall auto travel demand and often result in increased transit trips. Standard
practice assumes that on average, a single household generates ten auto trips per
day. Of those ten trips only two to four are home to work trips. In walkable,
mixed use developments, some percentage of the remaining trips is satisfied by
walking or biking – typically between 12 to 40 percent. The 5D process refines
the mode choice development step by applying design characteristics
(intensity/density, walkable/mixed use, etc.) to the outputs with factors based on
national and localized data.
The resulting person trip shift derived from the 5D process is then reintroduced
into the Travel Demand Model as the “Transit Assignment”. The Consultant
team maintained consistent network coding procedures during the analysis
Georgetown model.
Application of 5D Post Process 3.10
Figure 3-4 on the next page illustrates how the 5D process fits into the typical four
step model process. Specifically the process begins by targeting the unassigned
model-generated person trips. These trips have not yet been assigned to Walk,
Transit, or Vehicle but are distributed by type. The process starts when the model
selects areas that are within a walk, bicycle or drive shed (¼ mile, ½ mile, and 1 mile,
respectively). The process then targets specific trip types in the model. For instance
Home Based Work Trips tend to favor transit more than a Non Home Based Other
3-13
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
trip type. Therefore the 5D process will assign/allocate/apportion [any of these]
higher percentage of trips from the Home Base Work Trips to transit. The additional
factor that 5D adds includes development. At this point in the process Traffic
Analysis Zones are given increased transit capture rates based on Density, Diversity,
Design, and Distance/Destinations.
Model Application and Refinement 3.11
Following the above procedure, the models were applied with existing transportation
and planning data and compared to these counts. Comparisons of the first model
application to existing counts indicated that the models were over estimating traffic
on a total basis by only 13 percent. However, even though comparisons were good
on a total basis, there were many individual comparisons that were unacceptable.
Based on these results, it was obvious that some "fine tuning" of the models was
required. These adjustments included some minor speed changes to various links on
the network and trip generation modifications to account for special generators.
Comparisons of observed and assigned traffic for the final model run are shown in
Table 3.2. Overall, the estimated trips are within two percent of observed traffic.
3-14
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
The correlation coefficient, R2, is calculated from a linear regression analysis of
assigned and observed volumes. An R2 value of 1.0 indicates a perfect correlation.
Summary and Conclusions 3.12
The comparison of estimated trips with observed traffic counts crossing various
sections throughout the study area confirms that the model is in close agreement
with actual Year 2010 conditions, and attests to the ability of the travel demand
models to recreate Year 2010 travel patterns. Upon review of these results, it was
concluded that the Georgetown models can be used to reliably forecast travel
patterns.
3-15
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
Street Name Link ID AADT Assigned Volumes
Westinghouse Rd 14,906 747 714
Parmer Lane/CR 178 14,068 2,435 2,004
US 79 9,106 2,941 2,441
CR 113 7,127 3,000 2,437
Brushy Creek Rd 6,443 4,012 3,646
Loop 332/FM 1889 6,528 4,229 2,421
CR 115/Sunrise Rd 7,124 4,398 3,592
FM 2243 7,008 4,531 3,690
Old Settler’s Blvd 8,012 4,590 3,748
Brushy Creek Rd 6,882 4,640 7,120
SH 95 13,961 6,265 6,287
SH 29 18,373 6,500 5,334
SH 29 17,410 7,375 6,023
Lakeline Rd 6,789 7,422 6,637
McNeil Dr 7,167 8,530 17,813
Louis Henna Blvd 8,214 9,085 7,691
FM 973 6,264 9,626 9,974
Cypress Creek 6,790 10,108 10,593
FM 2768/Anderson Mill Rd 12,876 10,855 13,208
FM 2338 17,648 10,900 7,697
FM 734/Parmer Ln 10,137 11,759 9,646
Pflugerville Rd 8,197 12,156 25,684
FM 734/Parmer Ln 10,103 19,723 16,950
US 183 7,271 19,917 19,991
FM 1431 6,565 19,971 26,583
FM 1431 6,445 21,651 19,342
IH 35 8,578 24,350 24,638
McNeil Dr 10,084 33,831 34,005
US 79 7,762 35,422 29,159
FM 1325 11,986 50,734 41,266
IH 35 N 4,834 62,071 51,016
IH 35 3,712 107,890 94,081
IH 35 3,860 111,516 111,057
TOTAL 2,037,749 2,000,724
Differential Between AADT and Assigned 37,025
Percent Differential 1.81 %
4-1
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
Introduction 4.1
In the past, cities, counties and other jurisdictions used a hierarchical system to classify the
roadways based upon their functionality within the roadway hierarchy. The higher the
roadway is ranked in the hierarchy, the greater the mobility and the lower the accessibility.
In this traditional approach of roadway classification, one street type was available for each
classification type, reducing the ability for flexibility in the design of the roadway. However,
in recent years, the traditional approach to roadway design has begun to change into a
system with more flexible guidelines, basing the design of the street on the surrounding land
use, also known as the context. This new approach is known as Context Sensitive Design.
In order to accurately plan for future roadways, both the existing roadway network and the
surrounding context must be considered. Detailed descriptions of Georgetown’s
classification system were included in Chapter 2, but a brief overview is provided below as
well. Each of these classifications is described thoroughly in Georgetown’s UDC.
Background 4.2
The FHWA defines CSS as:
“A collaborative, interdisciplinary approach that involves all stakeholders to develop a
transportation facility that fits its physical setting and preserves scenic, aesthetic, historic and
environmental resources, while maintaining safety and mobility, and
An approach that considers the total context within which a transportation improvement
project will exist.”
In reviewing this definition, it is evident that the implementation of CSS not only addresses
the roadway design process but also reinforces land use planning objectives. The primary
goal of CSS is the incorporation of both land use and roadway functions into the overall
design of new roadways and/or the re-design of existing roadways. The implementation of
CSS allows both the City and real estate development professionals an opportunity to
account for the interaction between land and the roadway itself.
4-2
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
CSS enables the flexibility to consider alternative solutions that when used in conjunction
with traditional roadway design can benefit a broad range of stakeholders, while recognizing
the fiscal constraints of the City of Georgetown.
CSS maintains safety and mobility as priorities, yet recognizes that these are achieved in
varying degrees with alternative solutions. Utilizing the CSS philosophy, design professionals
determine which safe solution best fits given the site’s conditions and context. CSS is about
making good engineering and planning decisions. The decision as to how to best balance
competing values remains the responsibility of design professionals. As always, it is a
requirement to properly justify and document all design exceptions.
CSS promotes a collaborative, interdisciplinary decision making process that balances the
many needs of diverse stakeholders and offers flexibility in the application of design
controls, guidelines, and criteria, resulting in facilities that are safe and effective for all users
regardless of the mode of travel they choose. The basic principles of CSS include:
Balance safety, mobility, community and environmental goals in all projects
Involve the public and stakeholders early and continuously throughout the planning
and project development process
Use an interdisciplinary team tailored to project needs
Address all modes of travel
Apply flexibility inherent in design standards
Incorporate aesthetics as an integral part of good design
The following outline offers guidelines for planning a CSS network.
The system of multimodal thoroughfares may be organized by context zones,
functional classifications and thoroughfare types.
Every major thoroughfare should be designed to serve transit and pedestrians, as
well as private and commercial vehicles.
4-3
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
Design networks that concentrate longer distance through movements on limited
access and arterial thoroughfares.
Transit networks should focus on and take advantage of built or planned transit-
oriented developments.
Planning for right-of-way should consider needs based on network performance
measures that are multi-modal and that allow capacity and level-of-service to be
considered in conjunction with other measures, both quantitative and qualitative.
Thoroughfare connectivity or street shall be based on residential and commercial
density. For instance, local street block lengths should be 350’ to 500’ in higher
density mixed use areas as opposed to 600’ to 1000’ in suburban areas.
CSS can affect all design elements; therefore, project costs may increase, decrease, or be
unchanged as compared to the traditional design approach. Cost issues must be addressed
during project development, as is the case with all technical and environmental constraints.
The CSS approach does not imply that there will always be unanimity among stakeholders,
nor does it eliminate the City’s responsibility to exercise engineering judgment in balancing
trade-offs.
Without adoption and support of CSS principles by agencies (for example policies,
procedures, standards and programs) it will be challenging and difficult to apply CSS in
either a transportation planning process or improvement project. If a regional long-range
transportation plan or local corridor plan has not incorporated a process that considers CSS,
it may limit the range of options and the best overall solution. For example, changing the
functional classification of a roadway to be more compatible with its surrounding should be
considered at the level of the long-range transportation plan so that the change can be
evaluated within the context of the entire network. Without a large-scale evaluation and
adoption of the change in a plan, it will be difficult to change the functional classification at
the project development stage, even if conditions justify the change.
4-4
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
Basic Design Concept 4.3
The safe and efficient movement of multimodal traffic is achieved through the effective use
of three travel realms, which together, comprise a single right-of-way; Context Realm, Travel
Realm, and the Pedestrian/Streetside Realm. The anatomy of a street, detailing each of the
realms, is shown in Figure 4-1.
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. and Digital Media Productions as published in the ITE publication, Design Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive
Approach.
Although the realms operate to serve a single purpose, each realm maintains a unique
function that ensures the safe and efficient movement of traffic.
The Travelway Realm is most commonly referred to as the street. It represents the public
right-of-way that extends from curb to curb and allows for the transport of more general
traffic including cars, trucks, transit, and bicycles. Medians, transit stops, parking, and
temporary stops, such as loading zones, may also be found in the Travel Way Realm.
The Streetside or Pedestrian Realm is most commonly identified as the sidewalk which
parallels the street. However, this area is not limited to the sidewalk and is inclusive of all
areas between the curb and building interface. Planting buffers, furnishings, signs, shelters,
bicycle parking and other pedestrian amenities are located in this realm.
The Context Realm identifies those properties (private or public) that are adjacent to the
public right-of-way and may include residential homes, businesses, offices, and educational
4-5
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
facilities, among others. The locations of these establishments are universal and range in
placement from more urbanized to suburban context. These elements determine the overall
character of the roadway in terms of type, scale and other modifications required of the
adjacent travel way and pedestrian realm.
CSS may be applied to all street types, but focus on streets that play the most significant role
in the local transportation network and that offer the greatest multi-modal opportunities –
arterials and collectors.
Transitions 4.4
How certain transportation amenities, such as roadways, sidewalks, bicycle lanes and transit,
etc., transition from one street type to the next must be understood to ensure the successful
utilization of the entire R.O.W. Transitions are required to accommodate street width
limitations and include the modified progression of traffic through traditional street
functional classification system as defined above. Transitions may include traditional
geometric design changes such as smooth tapers where the number of lanes and speed limit
change. Based on surrounding context, transitions within a CSS Network extend beyond
geometric changes and include multi-modal considerations as well as visual cues to the
change in context. Transitions such as these can emphasize pedestrian priority, special
districts or corridor or even roadway functional classification. Transitions should, as with all
other aspects of the context sensitive design, be guided by the principles found in th e
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials “Green Book,”
Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices and other approved design guides.
Proposed Functional Classification System 4.5
There are no recommended changes to the City of Georgetown’s existing functional
classification system that were presented in Chapter 2. There are however, alternatives that
are presented and discussed within this chapter including the introduction of Context
Sensitive Solutions.
4-6
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
Georgetown CSS Efforts 4.6
In an attempt to allow for more transportation flexibility that takes into account the form of
adjacent land uses as opposed to just roadway functional classification, the City of
Georgetown has begun planning for the development and implementation of CSS solutions
within the City and its ETJ including the Downtown Master plan, which incorporates CSS
considerations. Through the adoption of the OTP, the City may revise the existing roadway
standards to include CSS options. While individuals can still adhere to the traditional design
standards, the CSS options presented on the following pages present a unique way of
planning for future roadway growth and development.
The CSS Contexts can be applied to both arterial and collector streets. While the street
classification remains the same, the differences lie in the Pedestrian Realm and Travel Way
Realm. This allows the greatest flexibility in the use of Context Sensitive Solutions in relation
to the surrounding land uses as well as roadway user needs.
4-7
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
4-8
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
4-9
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
4-10
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
4-11
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
Roadway Functional
Classification Limits Context
Addressed Purpose
DB Wood Rd Major Arterial Cedar Breaks Rd to
Williams Dr Commercial
Williams Dr. Major Arterial NB FR Rd to Lakeway
Dr Mixed Use Williams Dr.
Gateway
Riverbend Dr. Residential
Collector
Mesquite Ln to
Northwest Blvd Mixed Use
Park Ln. Residential
Collector
Williams Dr to E.
Central Dr. Mixed Use Williams Dr.
Gateway
Wolf Ranch
Pkwy Minor Arterial Rivery Blvd to SH 29 Mixed Use
N. Austin Ave Major Arterial San Gabriel Village to
Williams Dr. Commercial Williams Dr.
Gateway
S. Austin Ave Major Arterial Leander Rd to 18th St Mixed Use
Rock St Local Collector HWY 29 to 2nd St Commercial Downtown
Master Plan
Main St Local Collector HWY 29 to 2nd St Mixed Use Downtown
Master Plan
Next Steps 4.7
City funded and managed projects as well as those roadway projects receiving development
incentives should include Contect Sensitive Solution as the primary design criteria unless, at
the discretion of the Transportation Services Director, traditional roadway designs are
acceptable.
5-1
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
Introduction 5.1
A thorough understanding of the area’s present and future growth is critical in the
completion of the updated OTP. Development of this OTP involved review of the
existing transportation system to determine its ability to meet future transportation
needs when considering Georgetown’s potential growth. The updated CAMPO plan
and the land development patterns that are included within were reviewed and
incorporated into the OTP.
Traffic Capacity Criteria 5.2
A roadways’ traffic capacity is determined by a number of factors, primarily the
number of travel lanes, roadway functional classification, roadway speed, and width
of travel lanes. Other factors, such as intersection and driveway spacing, location and
number of traffic signals, traffic composition (percentage of heavy vehicles versus
single occupant vehicles), city size and driving habits of residents are important in
determining capacity.
The Level of Service (LOS) provided by any facility is a function of prevailing
conditions along the facility related to the traffic demands exerted by adjacent land
uses. A desirable level of service is achieved when a stable flow of traffic is
maintained at a desired travel speed. Increasing traffic densities beyond this level
results in greater delays and lower travel speeds, which reduces the service level of
that facility.
Estimated daily roadway capacities for the facilities in the City of Georgetown were
used in the travel demand model analysis. These roadways capacities are derived
from and are consistent with CAMPO’s 2035 Regional Travel Demand Model.
Future Traffic On Model Network 5.3
The initial step in the travel demand model analyses future (2035) demographics,
including vehicle trips, land uses, and projected growth. This analysis assumes that
5-2
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
there are no additional roadway network capacity additions/improvements other
than those projects already under construction. While this scenario is unlikely, the
assumption allows for a thorough understanding of the future impacts from growth
and development.
The results from this analysis indicated that the roadways shown in Table 5.1 will
exceed available capacity and need improvement. While all roadways needing
improvements are shown in the table, not all are under Georgetown’s jurisdiction.
However, all roadways within the City’s ETJ are shown for informational purposes.
The specifics of each improvement recommendation are discussed in subsequent
sections of this report.
Project Name Roadway Classification
Airport Road Minor Arterial
Berry Creek Drive Minor Arterial
Cooperative Way Collector
County Road 104 (Patriot Way) Collector
Rockride Lane Collector
County Road 111 Major Arterial
County Road 114 (Chandler Road) Major Arterial
County Road 173 (Chisholm Trail Road) Collector
County Road 103 Collector
County Road 106 Major Arterial
County Road 110 Minor Arterial
County Road 120 Major Arterial
County Road 143 Major Arterial
County Road 150 Collector
County Road 174 Collector
County Road 175 (Sam Bass Road) Major Arterial
County Road 176 (Crystal Falls Parkway) Minor Arterial
County Road 188 Collector
County Road 234 Major Arterial
D B Wood Road Major Arterial
FM 1460 Major Arterial
5-3
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
Project Name Roadway Classification
FM 2243 (Leander Road) Major Arterial
FM 971 Minor Arterial
FM 972 Collector
Williams Drive Major Arterial
Future Collector M (Prvt. Road 916) Collector
Georgetown Inner Loop Major Arterial
Georgetown SH 29 Bypass Other Freeway
IH 35 Frontage Roads
Logan Road Collector
Maple Street Collector
River Ridge Collector
Parmer Lane (Ronald Reagan Boulevard) Major Arterial
Rabbit Hill Road Collector
Round Rock Arterial A Major Arterial
Round Rock Arterial G Major Arterial
Round Rock Arterial H Major Arterial
SE 1 Minor Arterial
SH 29 Major Arterial
Shell Road Major Arterial
Smith Creek Road Collector
Snead Drive Collector
Southwestern Major Arterial
Sun City Boulevard Collector
SW 2 Major Arterial
SW 1 Collector
WC Arterial 2 Major Arterial
Verde Vista Drive Collector
5-4
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
Future Transportation Needs 5.4
The second step in the analysis included determination of which roadway
improvements are needed in order to ensure that projected traffic volume does not
exceed capacity. Table 5.2 and Figure 5.1a, 5.1b, 5.1c, and 5.1d identify the
roadways that will need improvements based on 2035 demand.
While there are a number of new roadway needs, the analysis serves to confirm the
roadway network needs are similar to those proposed in the 2004 OTP.
Once all necessary roadway improvements were determined, a more thorough review
of funding status and jurisdictional control was completed. Many of the regionally
significant roadways that need improvement are not under the control of the City of
Georgetown, but may be funded through Georgetown sources, including City-sold
Bonds, City funds or 4B funds from the GTEC. The overall transportation plan
calls for approximately 170 miles of roadway, which would cost approximately $1.97
billion in total. Funding has not been identified for all improvements as represented
in Table 5.2.
5-5
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
Project
ID
Roadway Improvement Project Limits Roadway
Classification
Funding Source
AA NW1/CR 234 Widening to 4 Lanes Shell Road to Northern
Limits (Beyond)
Minor Arterial None
BB Parmer Lane (Changed to
Ronald Reagan)
Widening to 4 Lanes IH 35 to SH 195 Major Arterial None
CC Parmer Lane (Changed to
Ronald Reagan)
Widening to 4 Lanes SH 195 to RR 2338 (Williams
Drive)
Major Arterial None
DD Sun City Boulevard
Extension
Widening to 4 Lanes Existing CR 147 (SH 195 to
CR 234)
Major Arterial None
EE Sun City Boulevard
Extension
New Construction New Road from CR 147 to
CR 146
Major Arterial None
FF Sun City Boulevard
Extension
Widening to 4 Lanes Existing CR 146 Major Arterial None
GG SW 1 Widening to 4 Lanes/New
Construction
Ronald Reagan to SH 29 Minor Arterial None
HH Shell Road Widening to 4 Lanes Williams Drive to Shell Spur Major Arterial None
II Logan Road/Shell Spur New 2-Lane Section Existing Logan Ranch Road
to Shell Road, then SH 195
Collector None
JJ Shell Road Widening to 4 Lanes SH 195 to Logan Road Major Arterial None
KK CR 143 Widening to 4 Lanes IH 35 to SH 195 Major Arterial None
LL FM 972 Widening to 4 Lanes Extension to CR 143
(Beyond)
Collector None
MM (Future Collector) New 2-Lane Section FM 972 to (Market
Street/CR 150)
Collector None
NN Parmer Lane (Changed to
Ronald Reagan)
Widening to 4 Lanes 3405 to SH 29 Major Arterial None
5-6
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
Project
ID Roadway Improvement Project Limits Roadway
Classification Funding Source
OO Verde Vista Drive Widening to 4 Lanes Williams Drive (Woodlake)
to Shell Road (Beyond) Collector None
PP Verde Vista Drive New Construction Shell Road to Sequoia Spur
(Beyond) Collector None
QQ Airport Road Redesign and Widening to
Urban Arterial
Berry Creek Drive south to
Halmar Cove Minor Arterial None
RR Berry Creek Drive Widening to 4 Lanes Airport Road to SH 195 Minor Arterial 2008 Road Bond
SS Market Street (CR 150) Redesign and New 2-Lane
Section
Market Street to Future
Collector M Collector None
TT North West Inner Loop Widening to 4 Lanes Water Plant to Cedar Breaks
Road Freeway None
UU Aviation Drive New Construction Airport Road to IH 35 Minor Arterial GTEC/GTAB
VV Airport Road Redesign and Widening to
Urban Arterial
Lakeway to North of
Halmar Cove Minor Arterial None
WW Three Forks to Aviation
Drive New Construction Buie Tract to Aviation Drive Collector GTEC/GTAB
XX Airport Road Redesign and Widening to
Urban Arterial IH35 to Lakeway Minor Arterial None
YY Airport Road Overpass New Construction IH 35 Overpass Minor Arterial None
ZZ Old Airport Road
Improvements Redesign to Minor Arterial IH 35 to Austin Avenue Minor Arterial None
AB SW 3 New 2-Lane Section Round Rock Arterial H to
Water Oak Parkway (BI) Collector None
AC
IH-35/Williams Gateway
Access Improvements
(includes Williams Drive
Gateway (GWO))
Intersection Improvements Rivery Boulevard to Austin Freeway/Frontage GTEC/GTAB
5-7
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
Project
ID Roadway Improvement Project Limits Roadway
Classification Funding Source
AD Rivery Boulevard extension New Construction Williams Drive to Northwest
Boulevard Minor Arterial GTEC partial
AE FM 971/Northwest Blvd
Bridge New Construction Fontana over IH35 to Apple
Creek Major Arterial GTEC/GTAB
AF Northbound Frontage
Road New Construction FM 2338 to Lakeway Frontage GTEC/GTAB
AG FM 971 Extension New Construction Terminus of NW/971 Bridge
(AE) to Gann St Major Arterial GTEC/GTAB
AH FM 971 Widening to 4 Lanes Gann Street east to SH 130 Major Arterial None
AI FM 971 Widening to 4 Lanes SH 130 east to CR 133 (Long
Term) Minor Arterial None
AJ North East Inner Loop Widening to 4 Lanes Highway 29 to Business 35 Major Arterial None
AK CR 103 New 2-Lane Section Existing CR 103 to FM 971 Collector None
AL CR 103 New Construction and
Widening to 4 Lane Section SH 29 to FM 971 Collector None
AM North West Inner Loop D.B. Wood widening to 4
Lanes Cedar Breaks Road to SH 29 Freeway None
AN D B Wood Widening to 4 Lanes Northwest Inner Loop to SH
29 Major Arterial None
AO IH 35 SB Frontage Road Widening Williams Drive To Rivery
Boulevard
Frontage
Road None
AP CR 188 Extension New Construction 7th Street to FM 971 Collector
AQ SH 29 West Widening to 6 Lanes Southwest Bypass west to
Ronald Reagan Major Arterial None
AR SH 29 West Widening to 6 Lanes IH 35 to Southwest Bypass Major Arterial None
AS CR 188 and Smith Creek
Road Widening to 4 Lanes SH 29 to Inner Loop Collector
5-8
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
Project
ID Roadway Improvement Project Limits Roadway
Classification Funding Source
AT State Highway 29 (East
University) Widening to 4 Lanes Haven Lane to SH 130 Major Arterial None
AU State Highway 29 East Widening to 4 Lanes SH 130 east to CR 104 Major Arterial None
AV State Highway 29 East Widening to 4 Lanes CR 104 east to CR 192 (Long
Term) Major Arterial None
AW Parmer Lane (Changed to
Ronald Reagan) Widening to 4 Lanes SH 29 to RM 2243 Major Arterial None
AX SW 1 New Construction SH 29 to CR 174 Minor Arterial None
AY SW 2 New 4-Lane Section SH 29 to Water Oak Parkway
(BI) Major Arterial None
AZ Southwest Bypass New Construction 2 Lanes SH 29 South to RM 2243 Freeway
ROW GTEC/GTAB
BC Wolf Ranch Parkway New Construction D.B. Wood to SH 29 Bypass
(tied to bypass) Minor Arterial GTEC/GTAB
BD Wolf Ranch Parkway New Construction SH 29 southwest to D.B.
Wood Road (BC) Minor Arterial None
BE FM 2243 Widen bridge across IH 35 to
6 Lanes and Turn Lanes
IH 35 Bridge to Railroad
Street Major Arterial None
BF SH 29 Bypass New Construction Maple Street to SH 29 East Freeway None
BG South East Inner Loop Widening to 4 Lanes SE1 to SH 29 East Minor Arterial None
BH CR 104 (Patriot Way) Widening to 4 Lanes SH 29 southwest to 130 and
SE 1 Collector None
BI Water Oak Parkway New Segments and Widening
to 4 Lanes
Parkside Parkway to DB
Wood Minor Arterial None
BJ RR 2243 (Leander Road) Widening Garey Park to River Ridge Major Arterial None
BK Southwest Bypass New Construction 2 Lanes RM 2243 to east of Business
35
Freeway
ROW GTEC/GTAB
5-9
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
Project
ID Roadway Improvement Project Limits Roadway
Classification Funding Source
BL IH 35 Southbound
Frontage Road Widening to 3 Lanes FM 2243 to Inner Loop Frontage None
BM Snead Drive Widening to 4 Lanes Cooperative Way to SE Inner
Loop Collector GTEC/GTAB
BN Cooperative Way Widening to 4 Lanes S. Austin Avenue to Snead
Drive (beyond) Collector None
BO FM 1460 - Section 1 Widening to 6 Lanes Quail Valley to Inner Loop Major Arterial None
BP Southwestern Blvd Widening to 4 Lanes Raintree Street to SE Inner
Loop Collector None
BQ Carlson Cove New Construction CR 110 to CR 104) (Beyond) Collector None
BR Sam Bass Parkway Widening to 4 Lanes Sam Bass Road to FM 2243 Major Arterial None
BS CR 176/Crystal Falls
Parkway Widening to 4 Lanes CR 174 to Ronald Reagan Minor Arterial None
BT Inner Loop Spur New Construction Southwest Bypass to IH 35 Collector None
BU South East Inner Loop Widening to 4 Lanes IH 35 to Southwestern Freeway
ROW
GTEC/GTAB
Alternative Funding:
Bond SW Bypass Study
Alternative Funding:
Federal STP-MM
BV Southwestern / Arterial A
/ CR 100 Widening to 4 Lanes Inner Loop to Round Rock
Arterial A Major Arterial None
BW CR 104 (Bell Gin Rd) Widening to 4 Lanes Carlson Cove to RR ETJ Minor Arterial None
BX CR 173 (Chisholm Trail
Road) New 4-Lane Section Inner Loop Spur (BT) to
Round Rock ETJ Collector None
BY Parkside Parkway Widening to 4 Lanes Sam Bass to Water Oak
Parkway (BI) Collector None
BZ Rabbit Hill Road Redesign and Widening to
Urban Section (4 Lanes)
Blue Springs Parkway to
Westinghouse Rd. Collector None
5-10
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
Project
ID Roadway Improvement Project Limits Roadway
Classification Funding Source
CD FM 1460 - Section 2 Widening to 6 Lanes Inner Loop to South ETJ
Limits Major Arterial None
CE Blue Ridge Drive
Extension New Construction Blue Ridge Drive (existing) to
Westinghouse Road Collector None
CF Ridge Line Boulevard New Construction Maple Street to Fox Drive
(along CR 166) Collector None
CG Maple Street New Construction Inner Loop to Westinghouse Collector None
CH CR 175/Sam Bass Widening to 4 Lanes CR 176 to Sam Bass
Parkway, BI to BR Major Arterial None
CI Round Rock Arterial H New 4-Lane Section Southbound IH 35 Frontage
to Ronald Reagan Major Arterial None
CJ CR 111 (Westinghouse
Road) Improve to 6 Lane Section IH 35 to FM 1460 Major Arterial None
CK Oakmont Drive/Rabbit
Hill Road New Construction
Round Rock Oakmont to
Westinghouse Rd. (RR Simon
Mall)
Minor Arterial None
CL CR 111 (Westinghouse
Road) Improve to 6 Lane Section FM 1460 to Arterial A Major Arterial None
CM CR 111 (Westinghouse
Road) Improve to 6 Lane Section Arterial A to SH 130 Major Arterial None
CN Round Rock Arterial A New 6 Lane Section CR 114 to CR 112 Major Arterial None
CO Parmer Lane (Changed to
Ronald Reagan) Widening to 4 Lanes 3405 to RM 2338 (Williams
Drive) Major Arterial None
CP Rockride Lane Realignment SE Inner Loop to
Southwestern Collector None
CQ Stadium Dr. Widening to 5 Lanes Austin Ave. to NE Inner
Loop Minor Arterial None
5-11
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
¬«195
Lake Georgetown
WIL
L
I
A
M
S
D
R
S U NCITYBLVD
DELW E B B B LV D
SHELL R
D
WI
L
L
P
P
II
OO
TT
HH
CO
N
N
BB
CC
G
G
Roadways Needing
Improvements²
0 0.625 1.25Miles
Figure 5-1a
Freeways/FrontageRoads
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
Weir
Cedar Park
Round Rock
Georgetown
Georgetown ETJ
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t
P
a
t
h
:
G
:
\
0
5
7
3
.
0
0
3
.
0
0
1
F
i
n
a
l
i
z
e
O
T
P
U
p
d
a
t
e
s
\
0
7
.
0
0
C
A
D
D
\
R
e
v
i
s
e
d
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
s
_
2
0
1
4
_
1
2
_
1
1
\
5
-
1
.
m
x
d
c
b
d
a
5-12
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
§¨¦35
WeirFM 971
CITYBLVD
SHELL R
D
AIR
P
O
R
T
R
D
WI
L
L
I
A
M
S
D
R
YY
II
WW
AF
ZZ AH
AJ
VV
XX
FF
DD
AL
A
K
RR
MM
QQ
HH
JJ
EE
UU
SS
LL
KK
BB
A
A
AI
Roadways Needing
Improvements²
0 0.625 1.25Miles
Figure 5-1b
Freeways/FrontageRoads
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
Weir
Cedar Park
Round Rock
Georgetown
Georgetown ETJ
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t
P
a
t
h
:
G
:
\
0
5
7
3
.
0
0
3
.
0
0
1
F
i
n
a
l
i
z
e
O
T
P
U
p
d
a
t
e
s
\
0
7
.
0
0
C
A
D
D
\
R
e
v
i
s
e
d
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
s
_
2
0
1
4
_
1
2
_
1
1
\
5
-
1
.
m
x
d
c
a
d
b
5-13
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
Cedar Park
¬«29
Lake Georgetown
RM 2243
D
B
W
O
O
D
R
D
WI
L
L
HH
B
R
AR
BX
CH
BD
B
T
A
N
BJ
BC
BK
AM
AW
BS
BY
AZ
AY
TT
G
G
AQ
A
B
BI
AX
CI
N
N
Roadways Needing
Improvements²
0 0.625 1.25Miles
Figure 5-1c
Freeways/FrontageRoads
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
Weir
Cedar Park
Round Rock
Georgetown
Georgetown ETJ
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t
P
a
t
h
:
G
:
\
0
5
7
3
.
0
0
3
.
0
0
1
F
i
n
a
l
i
z
e
O
T
P
U
p
d
a
t
e
s
\
0
7
.
0
0
C
A
D
D
\
R
e
v
i
s
e
d
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
s
_
2
0
1
4
_
1
2
_
1
1
\
5
-
1
.
m
x
d
a b
dc
5-14
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
¬«195
Lake Georgetown
WIL
L
I
A
M
S
D
R
S U NCITYBLVD
DELW E B B B LV D
SHELL R
D
WI
L
L
P
P
II
OO
TT
HH
CO
N
N
BB
CC
G
G
Roadways Needing
Improvements²
0 0.625 1.25Miles
Figure 5-1a
Freeways/FrontageRoads
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
Weir
Cedar Park
Round Rock
Georgetown
Georgetown ETJ
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t
P
a
t
h
:
G
:
\
0
5
7
3
.
0
0
3
.
0
0
1
F
i
n
a
l
i
z
e
O
T
P
U
p
d
a
t
e
s
\
0
7
.
0
0
C
A
D
D
\
R
e
v
i
s
e
d
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
s
_
2
0
1
4
_
1
2
_
1
1
\
5
-
1
.
m
x
d
c
b
d
a
6-1
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
The City of Georgetown recognizes the importance of pedestrian mobility as described in
the 2008 Comprehensive Plan Vision Statement #3 and reflected in the City’s biennial
Citizen Survey. Several City Master Plans contribute to the development and maintenance
of the City’s pedestrian network including the City of Georgetown Sidewalk Master Plan and
Georgetown Parks, Recreation and Trails Master Plan. Reviews of these plans were not
completed as part of the OTP as these guiding documents operate independently of the
Overall Transportation Plan given their size, scope and importance.
Georgetown Sidewalk Master Plan 6.1
The Sidewalk Master Plan is under development and adoption is expected in early
2015. The purpose of the City of Georgetown Sidewalk Master Plan and Public
Facility Access Audit is to inventory existing public infrastructure within the City of
Georgetown City limits, identify design and compliance deficiencies, evaluate future
program requirements and develop a ten year implementation plan. The plan also
references existing guidelines, land development requirements and public legal
responsibilities of current Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation (TDLR)
and American with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements.
Georgetown Parks, Recreation and Trails Master Plan 6.2
The Georgetown Parks, Recreation and Trails Master Plan was adopted in April
2009. The plan establishes the Parks Department goals to make Parks accessible,
valued and focal points throughout the City. A key component of reaching the goals
is providing trails from key points throughout the City to Parks. Chapter 8 – Trail
Master Plan Recommendations focuses on the trail component developed from the
Parks Department planning effort. The chapter outlines different trail categories,
types of amenities, and proposed trail alignments. In conjunction with the Parks
Master Plan, a Trails and Greenways Master Plan was developed in July 2009
providing detail for the implementation of various off-street trail facilities.
6-2
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
Connectivity with Roadways 6.3
In many cases, sidewalk and trail needs overlap with roadway needs. It has always
been the vision of the City to work together with all departments to help the
residents of Georgetown achieve more connectivity and higher quality of life
through the implementation of the key projects in the Sidewalk Master Plan, the
Trails and Greenways Master Plan and the Overall Transportation Plan.
7-1
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
A complete transportation network requires the coordination of the roadway, sidewalk and
bicycle systems. The City of Georgetown does not have an adopted bicycle plan and the
provisions set forth within the UDC do not adequately address a bicycle plan. While limited
provisions for bicycle facilities have been accounted for in the UDC, there is not a plan to
guide private land developers and the City in the construction of new roadways with bicycle
facilities or to retrofit existing roadways with potential bicycle facilities. The bicycle system
needs to be addressed to aid in the integration of these facilities.
In the creation of a Master Plan, the City needs to fully understand the various categories of
on-street bicycle facilities. It should be noted that off-street facilities, typically located in
parks or other public areas, fall under different guidelines and will not be addressed. The
completion of the off-street plan should be a subsequent continuation of the on-street plan.
The following sections contain excerpts from the City of Austin’s “Bicycle Facilities
Toolbox”, which was developed by Klotz Associates. The information summarizes the
various categories of on- and off-street bicycle facilities. This information does not represent
an overall plan, but does provide a guide for various bicycle facility design elements the City
may want to consider when creating and adopting a city-wide bicycle plan. Information in
this chapter was compiled from the 1999 Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, published
by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO),
and the 2006 Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (TMUTCD), published by
TxDOT.
The information presented provides a foundation for deciding what bicycle plan elements
are desired by the community. Subsequent sections address potential City-specific bicycle
plan ideas. The bicycle plan should be tied to the priority elements as identified in the
sidewalk plan and should address school, recreational and commercial access. Once the
bicycle plan has been established, a more thorough review can be completed that considers
off-street bicycle paths.
7-2
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
Bicycle Terminology 7.1
Bicycle Facility – A general term denoting improvements and provisions made by
public agencies to accommodate and encourage bicycling. This includes roadway
improvements for bicycle travel, bicycle parking facilities, and other bicycle-friendly
improvements.
Bicycle Lane – A portion of a roadway that has been designated for bicycle use with
signage and pavement markings. This lane is for the exclusive use of bicycles –
vehicular parking, vehicular standing and driving is prohibited.
Bicycle Path (Shared-Use Path) – A bikeway separated from vehicular traffic by an
open space of barrier within the highway or independent right-of-way. Shared use
paths may also be used by pedestrians, skaters, wheelchair users, joggers and other
non-motorized users.
Shared Roadway – A roadway that is open to both bicycle and motor vehicle travel.
This may be an existing roadway with wide lanes or paved shoulders. A shared
roadway may be signed as a route for bicyclists, if specific AASHTO criteria are met.
The Bicycle and Bicycle User 7.2
An operating space of five feet is assumed as the minimum width needed for any
facility designed for the exclusive use of bicycle riders. The skill level, confidence and
preference of cyclists vary dramatically. Some riders are confident riding anywhere
they are legally allowed to operate (Type A); however, most adult riders prefer to use
roadways with a more comfortable amount of operating space or shared use paths
that are separated from traffic (Type B). Type C includes children. All classifications
require smooth riding surfaces with bicycle-friendly roadway design.
Type A – Advanced or experienced riders generally use their bicycle as they would a
motor vehicle. A number of these riders will commute via bicycle and they are
comfortable riding with vehicular traffic, but need sufficient operating space on the
travel way or shoulder. These more advanced riders are riding for convenience,
speed and exercise.
7-3
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
Type B – Basic or less confident adult riders may also be using their bicycles for
transportation purposes, but these riders prefer to avoid roads with fast or busy
motor vehicular traffic. Basic riders are comfortable riding on neighborhood streets
and shared use paths, but prefer designated facilities, such as bicycle lanes or wide
shoulder lanes on busier streets.
Type C – Children require access to key destinations, such as schools, recreational
facilities and convenience stores. Residential streets with low traffic and links with
shared use paths can accommodate children on bicycles.
Bicycle Friendly Communities 7.3
The City of Georgetown has long sought to become a more bicycle friendly
community. Given the rapid growth and development of the City and the region, the
area is quickly becoming a desirable place for bicycle enthusiasts. The large number
of urban parks coupled with the unprecedented growth and development ultimately
requires consideration of bicycle traffic. The CSS discussion presented in Chapter 4
addresses bicycle facilities as they relate to the roadway character and adjacent land
uses. The contexts presented herein allow for the consideration of these facilities and
outlines the groundwork for their construction.
While the City of Georgetown does not have an adopted bicycle plan in place, the
City should begin by addressing bicycle needs for each of the priority elements
identified in the sidewalk discussion.
Facility Types 7.4
Planners and engineers recognize that bikeway design choices will affect the level of
use, the type of rider and the level of access. Bicycle facilities should be planned to
provide connectivity and consistency for all users. Priority consideration should be
given to those priority elements that have limited or no bicycle access. For example,
children residing within a school boundary but outside the bus ridership zone should
be rated the highest priority. These children must find an alternative form of
transportation to and from school and they often want to ride a bicycle. Providing a
7-4
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
safe, well-delineated and well-signed bicycle path will allow students the opportunity
to ride their bicycles.
There are three distinctly different bicycle route designations; shared roadway
(including the use of the “sharrow” designation), standard bicycle lane, and shared
use paths. Each of these will be discussed in greater detail in the following sections.
Shared Roadways 7.5
These are the most common bicycle facility types for local and recreational travel.
Many times signing and striping are not necessary; however, it is advisable to install
some type of warning signage within the vicinity of a school, park or other area with
a high number of children. Typically, cyclists use either a shoulder or a wide curb
lane to travel along the desired route. Wide curb lanes are common especially within
residential and local level street classifications.
The paved shoulder option provides a shoulder that is intended for bicyclists. This
can be in a rural setting with open ditch design or along a curb and gutter section.
For both options, AASHTO recommends a minimum of five feet in width with a
four-inch solid white line separating the bicycle from the general vehicle travel lane.
When vehicle travel speeds are greater than 50 MPH or there are roadside barriers,
such as guardrails, the width should be larger. The wide curb lane is simply a wider
outside travel lane, with no bicycle lane delineation or demarcation.
The outside travel lane should be wider that the 12-foot design width; a 14-foot
width is recommended (not including gutter). The minimum width should be
increased to 15 feet where steep grades, drainage barriers or other roadside barriers
exist.
When on-street parking is allowed, the bicycle lane should be separated from the
parking lane and the vehicular travel lane. A minimum 24-foot lane should be
provided. This allows for an 8-foot parking lane, a 5-foot bicycle lane and an 11-foot
travel lane.
7-5
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
Allowing both on-street parking and bicycle traffic should not be allowed unless the
above accommodations can be made. It is not advisable to stripe for parking or
bicycle traffic, but to allow for the mixed use of the facility.
In addition to on-street parking, there are many concerns with respect to shared
roadways, including pavement quality, drainage grates and the presence of uneven
roadway surfaces, such as those found in the Old Town district in Central
Georgetown. Cyclists must be vigilant with respect to all of these and must be aware
of the potential for opening car doors, maneuvering and oversized vehicles.
Pavement surfaces provide a unique issue for bicyclists. The bicyclist rides on the
outer edge of the outer lane where the pavement tends to wear and the riders often
cannot easily discern the pavement conditions until they are right upon them. A
small pavement irregularity can cause a rider to swerve, veer off course or lose
control.
Shared roadways must be signed properly in accordance with local codes and
standards. A signed shared roadway is a roadway that has been signed according to
the adopted City bicycle plan or route map. This is the final step that the City of
Georgetown has been missing. Once a bicycle plan has been established, it should be
determined if the City will go so far as to assign route number and sign accordingly.
A shared bicycle facility should not be signed unless it meets specific criteria as
defined by AASHTO.
Sharrows
While sharrows are relatively new to the Central Texas region, they have been in use
throughout the United States for many years. As shown in Figure 7-1, a sharrow is a
pavement marking that is applied along the right side of the roadway travel path.
There is no separate lane designation for the bicyclists as they are encouraged to ride
within the same travel lane as a vehicle. This marking indicates to both motorists and
cyclists that this lane is intended to be shared by both users. The sharrow pavement
marking also encourages cyclists to ride toward the center of the travel lane to avoid
parked cars; to ride on the street (as opposed to the sidewalk, avoiding pedestrians)
7-6
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
and in the same direction of traffic; and makes motorists aware of the cyclists’ right
to be in the lane and their potential presence in the lane.
Bicycle Lanes 7.6
Bicycle lanes are used exclusively to define the road space available for the bicycle
rider. Bicycle lanes are one-way facilities that allow bicyclists to follow the directional
traffic flow and should be designated with a solid white line, pavement markings and
appropriate bicycle lane signage (i.e. No Parking signs). However, this is not a
requirement, as discussed in the following sections. If the roadway has curb and
gutter or on-street parking the design criteria varies, but every effort should be made
to separate the bicycle lane from the parking lane as shown in Figure 7-2 and the
photograph below.
7-7
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
Bicycle lanes are striped specifically for bicycle usage and no other uses are allowed
in these lanes. Bicycle lanes should be striped for one-way riding in the same
direction as vehicular traffic flow.
If parking is not allowed, the bicycle
lane should be a minimum of 4 feet
wide without curb and gutter or 5 feet
wide with curb and gutter. In either
case, if the speed limit is greater than
50 MPH, the lane should be 5 feet
wide.
If on-street parking exists, but the lane
is not striped separately, the shared
area should be a minimum of 12 feet
wide without curb and gutter or 13
feet wide with curb and gutter.
Bicycle lanes have many of the same
concerns as shared roadways: on-street
parking, pavement quality and uneven
pavement conditions. Bicyclists must avoid opening car doors, oversized vehicles,
and maneuvering vehicles. The minimum lane widths should be provided to safely
accommodate both bicyclists and parked vehicles.
Example of Exclusive Bicycle Lane
7-8
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
Shared Use Paths 7.7
Shared use paths are typically off the roadway network and used for mixed-use or
recreational purposes. These paths tend to have their own dedicated or reserved
right-of-way and minimal interaction with motor vehicles. These paths are shared by
cyclists, skaters, and pedestrians – anything other than motorized vehicles. Shared
paths should not be a replacement for on-road facilities, but rather a supplement to
the existing system and an additional form of recreation. A shared path is a minimum
of 10 feet wide, but heavily used paths (San Gabriel Park) should be wider; the
typical width is 12 to 14 feet.
City of Georgetown Needs 7.8
The City of Georgetown currently has limited bicycle accommodations and the
existing roadway operational characteristics provide limited availability for bicycle
accommodations on existing inner city streets (between Leander Road and Williams
Drive, just east and west of IH 35). Section 12.02.030 of the City’s UDC addresses
bicycle needs, but does not fully conform to AASHTO minimum standards. Thus, it
is recommended that this section of the UDC be revised to include more thorough
bicycle considerations. Revising Subsection 12.02.030 and Section 12.03 should be
the highest priority. Section 12.02.030 indicates that bicycle lanes could be provided
and Section 12.03 omits all references to bicycle lanes. Provisions for bicycle lanes
should be designated in 12.03.020.
As AASHTO suggests, a bicycle lane should be a minimum of 3 feet in width
(bicycle lane without adjacent parking lane) to 12 feet (non-striped parking lane).
While many of the newer outlying developments have made provisions for bicycle
lanes and off system trails, the central City area has limited possibilities. The City
should strive to develop a Master Bicycle Plan that incorporates both the on-street
network and off-street trail network. The development of this Master Plan should
have a three pronged approach – inner City neighborhoods, new developments, and
proposed developments. Each component should adhere to the requirements set
forth in the UDC.
7-9
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
Inner City Neighborhoods
The inner city neighborhoods will require extensive discussions with neighborhood
residents to determine which routes bicycle riders use and which city streets have
street width available to accommodate a bicycle lane. A combination of shared
bicycle lanes and sharrow lanes can easily be used in many of these areas. The shared
lanes require a minimum of 12 feet width (no on-street parking), and 23 feet width
(with on-street parking). This 23-foot width includes the minimum for each lane:
parking (7 feet), bicycle (5 feet) and travel (11 feet). These widths should be
increased when possible, especially on streets with high volume, high speed and
potentially high parking turn over. The sharrow is a standard travel lane with the
sharrow symbol. Caution should be used in the installation of sharrow symbols so
that they are not overused. They should not be applied in residential areas (i.e. along
Myrtle or Elm Street) as these areas have limited lane width and the residential nature
encourages bicycle usage. Sharrows could be installed along Austin Avenue or Main
Street where there are no existing provisions for bicycle riders. If provisions for
riders were made along these streets, more riders might utilize the roadway to go into
downtown, San Gabriel Park and other destinations.
Subdivision Development
The City could require the addition of bicycle lanes on all new subdivision roadways.
This would include the addition of five feet of pavement to allow for an exclusive
bicycle lane or the re-working of the proposed cross-section to allow for a shared
lane. Under the current Street Classification Standards (12.03.020), the addition of
the bicycle lane could be required on all streets with a classification of Major
Collector and higher if the outside travel lane (a four-lane roadway) or both lanes of
a two-lane roadway is a minimum of 14 feet in width.
Unified Development Code Adherence
The third element of the Master Plan development would be the inclusion of bicycle
provisions within the UDC. This would require the revision of Section 12.03 –
Streets and Section 12.02.030 – Geometric and Design Criteria for Bicycle Facilities.
7-10
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
In Section 12.03, the provision of bicycle lanes needs to be included within each of
the classifications requiring bicycle lanes and on UDC Table 12.03.020. If the City
desires bicycle lanes, the requirement needs to be specifically stated on the
designated street classifications, similar to the sidewalk requirement. For example, it
appears that a Major Collector could have a bicycle lane while a Residential Collector
could not, based upon available pavement width and AASHTO requirements.
Section 12.02.030 should be revised to conform to the minimum AASHTO
requirements and more thoroughly outline the bicycle requirements for the roadways
throughout the City of Georgetown. Table 12.02.040, as depicted in the current
UDC, is shown below in Table 7.1.
Function of Bikeway Bikeway
Width
Required
Right-of-Way Measured From
Two-way Bikeway for bicycles only
(non-roadway) 6.4’ 8’ --
Sidewalk/Bikeway one-way only 4.8’ 7.8’ Curb
Sharing street right-of-way with
moving vehicles only 4.1’ 4.1’ Edge of street
right-of-way
Sharing street right-of-way with
moving and parked vehicles against
curb
5.3’ 13.3’ Curb to outer
edge of bikeway
NOTE: - I believe “right-of-way” is incorrectly used in this case; probably should
read “traveled way.”
This table provides some general guidance information, but there are a few items
that are not up to AASHTO minimums or are traditionally highly discouraged. These
are further discussed in the standards breakdown below. Overall there needs to be a
distinction between a bikeway, bicycle/shared path, bicycle lane and shared lane. The
term “bikeway” can have several meanings and is not clearly defined. The more
common designations of bicycle path, bicycle lane and shared lane should be used
for consistency.
7-11
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
Bicycle/Shared Path – Shared use paths are typically off the roadway network and
have mixed-use or recreational purposes. While it would be ideal to have an exclusive
bicycle path and an exclusive walking path, the typical setting of these paths leads to
usage by both pedestrians and bicyclists. The width of this lane can vary widely since
it is typically an off-street path. However, the typical width ranges from 10 to 12 feet
or even higher.
Bicycle Lane - This is traditionally an on-street bicycle lane that is defined through
striping and signage. The addition of this lane does require additional pavement but
typically does not require additional right-of-way. The typical width for this facility
ranges from 3 feet (without on-street parking) to 12 feet (with non-striped on-street
parking). Caution should be used in the implementation of this lane so that the
bicycle lane does not appear to be a parking lane. The lane should be signed as a
bicycle lane with “No Parking” signage when applicable.
Shared Lane – The shared lane is a typical vehicular travel lane that is greater in
width to accommodate the presence of bicyclists. The width of a shared lane ranges
from 4 feet (wide outside paved shoulder) to 22 feet (wide outside travel lane with
on-street parking).
Functionality of Bikeway
The function of all bikeways is to provide safe and effective travel for bicycle users.
While there are a variety of user types, the design should accommodate the most
basic riders. The combination of sidewalk and bikeway should be discouraged. Table
7.1 allows for a shared bikeway and sidewalk of 4.8 feet. These two user groups
should not be combined unless it is on a wide off-street pathway. This standard
should be separated into pedestrian and bicyclists needs.
Bikeway Width
The bikeway width for the “Two-way Bikeway for bicycles only (non-roadway)”
should be changed to an off-road bicycle path. The typical park-like nature of the
bicycle path allows for both bicyclists and pedestrians. If the off-street path was the
goal of this standard, then the width should be increased to a minimum of 10 feet.
7-12
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
These are only two issues identified within Table 7.1. Given the confusion and lack
of direction, it is recommended that UDC Table 12.02.040 be replaced with the
information presented in Table 7.2.
7-13
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
FACILITY
TYPE
FACILITY
DESCRIPTION
COMMENTS
MI
N
I
M
U
M
WI
D
T
H
2 (L
F
)
RE
C
O
M
M
E
N
D
E
D
W
I
D
T
H
2 (L
F
)
Pavement
Markings
Signs
Shared
Roadway Paved Shoulder No curb & gutter
(C&G) 4 4 +
Separated from
traffic by 4 inch
stripe
Bicycle route signs can
be posted, if
AASHTO criteria are
met.
Shared
Roadway Paved Shoulder
Next to C&G,
guardrail, etc. Do
not include gutter
width
5 5 +
Separated from
traffic by 4 inch
stripe
Bicycle route signs can
be posted, if
AASHTO criteria are
met.
Shared
Roadway Paved Shoulder
If next to 50+ mph
traffic, wider
shoulders
recommended
5 5 +
Separated from
traffic by 4 inch
stripe
Bicycle route signs can
be posted, if
AASHTO criteria are
met.
Shared
Roadway Wide Curb Lane
Vehicles & bicycles
in same lane. C&G
width not to be
included
12 14
If wider than 15
feet, striped bicycle
lanes should be
considered.
Bicycle route signs can
be posted, if
AASHTO criteria are
met.
Shared
Roadway Wide Curb Lane
When steep grades,
drainage grates or
barriers exist
12 15
If wider than 15
feet, striped bicycle
lanes should be
considered.
Bicycle route signs can
be posted, if
AASHTO criteria are
met.
Shared
Roadway Wide Curb Lane
Includes minimum
of 12 feet for parked
vehicles and
bicyclists
22 24
If wider than 15
feet, striped bicycle
lanes should be
considered.
Bicycle route signs can
be posted, if
AASHTO criteria are
met.
Bicycle
Lane Without Parking No C&G 4 5 +
Separated from
traffic by 6 inch
stripe
See TMUTCD3,
chapter 9.
Bicycle
Lane Without Parking
Next to C&G,
guardrail, etc. Do
not include gutter
width
3 5 +
Separated from
traffic by 6 inch
stripe
See TMUTCD3,
chapter 9.
Bicycle
Lane
With Striped
Parking
If next to 50+ mph
traffic, an additional
1 to 2 feet is
recommended
5 7
Striped bicycle lane
between vehicle
traffic and parking
lane
See TMUTCD3,
chapter 9.
Bicycle
Lane
With Non-
Striped Parking No C&G 11 13
If high volume of
parking, add 1 to 2
feet.
See TMUTCD3,
chapter 9.
Bicycle
Lane
With Non-
Striped Parking Next to C&G 12 14
If high volume of
parking, add 1 to 2
feet.
See TMUTCD3, for
intersection crossings.
Shared
Use Path Two-Way Use
Not recommended,
if adjacent to existing
roadways
10 12 +
Can have center line
striping and
direction markings
See TMUTCD3, for
intersection crossings.
Source: AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 2012
7-14
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
Recommendations 7.9
The following recommendations are made for consideration as a preliminary step in
the creation of a city-wide Master Bicycle Plan. There are a few roadway specifics
offered, but the City should meet with residents to aid in the identification of specific
locations for potential bicycle lanes, primarily for the older, established
neighborhoods within the central city. Once the bicycle standards are in place and
are required of specific roadway classifications, the adoption of a Master Bicycle Plan
can be completed within a matter of months.
Sharrow lanes should be considered along sections of Austin Avenue and Main
Street. This can be applied to the entire length of the roadway or just the areas going
into and out of the downtown area and San Gabriel Park.
The construction of bicycle lanes is not advised along Williams Drive unless
additional pavement is provided. This roadway appears to be a good candidate for
bicycle lanes, but the high vehicular volume, high travel speeds and the large number
of driveway access points could be a safety problem for bicyclists. Shoulders are the
“bike lanes”
Bicycle lanes should be available on all roadways within the Rivery and Wolf Ranch
developments. This is especially true for the entire length and both sides of Rivery
Boulevard and Rivery Driveway. Roadways “within” these developments are not
public roads.
Bicycle lanes should be considered along both sides of SH 29, west of IH 35. While
it is ideal to continue the bicycle lanes east of IH 35, right-of-way limitations prevent
their construction. The outer lanes could be converted into shared lanes with the
sharrow symbol and appropriate signage.
There is a wide outside shoulder along D B Wood Road that could be converted into
a bicycle lane. This would allow for continuous bicycle access from SH 29 to
Williams Drive. With additional pavement, bicycle lanes could be constructed along
Shell Road from Williams Drive to SH 195, completing a north-south route within
the City. If the shoulders are used, the appropriate signage should be installed.
7-15
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
The construction of a bicycle lane should be considered along RM 2243 (Leander
Road). The minimal shoulders could be reconstructed and used as a bicycle lane. If
the shoulders are used, the appropriate signage should be installed.
With the proposed completion of SE Inner Loop and the potential for development
along SE Inner Loop and NE Inner Loop, the construction of bicycle lanes should
be considered.
The downtown district should incorporate bike lanes per the recommendation of the
Downtown Master Plan adopted in April 2014.
Inner City Neighborhoods using a study to identify key routes that limit impacts to
on-street parking and vehicular traffic. Routes such as 7th street from Maple Street to
Austin Avenue have already been preliminarily identified by City staff as a logical
connector between Downtown and Southwestern University.
8-1
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
The City of Georgetown does not independently provide or support transit services. The
City is not in the Capital Metro Transit Agency (Capital Metro) service area and does not
have direct access to Capital Metro bus or rail services. In order for residents to use the
Capital Metro transit system, they travel to Round Rock or Leander to ride the existing bus
and rail lines.
Limited transit service (Community and Connector Transit services) is provided by Capital
Area Rural Transit System (CARTS); however, the routes are limited with regard to drop-off
points and service times. During the development of the OTP, transit issues and concerns
were continually raised by local residents and officials. The consensus was that they would
like some type of local and regional service provided; whether or not this is independent, on-
demand or affiliated with Capital Metro was open for discussion. The following sections
detail existing transit operations and outline potential future transit opportunities. The goal
of this plan is to outline the steps the City has taken to study transit operations and provide
direction as to how the City can move forward and achieve the transit system the citizens
desire.
Background 8.1
There is no existing local transit service, so the residents must utilize the CARTS
connector service to Round Rock and Leander, or utilize the limited CARTS
community service. From Round Rock and Leander, residents are able to take a
variety of bus lines into Austin, the University of Texas campus and Austin-
Bergstrom International Airport, or they can ride the train, which serves a total of
nine transit stations: Leander, Lakeline, Howard, Kramer, Crestview, Highland,
MLK, Jr., Plaza Saltillo, and Downtown. While the exact number of Georgetown
residents currently riding Capital Metro is unknown, there were a large percentage of
people who attended the public meetings wanting to explore this opportunity.
CARTS local facility is located at Georgetown – Carts Metro Connector at the
northwest corner of Austin Avenue and SE Inner Loop (east of IH 35). This facility
is both a Park-n-Ride facility and a bus station for local and regional transit
8-2
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
connections. The Park-n-Ride facility offers bus, carpool, and vanpool services to the
central Texas community. The Lakeline Station offers connections to Capital Metros’
MetroRail and MetroBus services. While the CARTS station provides connectivity, it
is limited both by time of day and service location. The facility opened in 2010 and
there are currently six departure times – three in the early morning and three in the
afternoon.
In addition to this fixed facility, CARTS offers Door-to-Door, on-demand services –
“Community Services”. Door-to-Door service includes local services that operate
daily during the week between 8:00 am and 4:30 pm. Community Service is also
provided to the cities of Austin and Round Rock on a limited, alternating daily
service:
Austin - Monday, Wednesday and Friday (8:00 am to 2:00 pm)
Round Rock - Tuesday and Thursday (8:00 am to 12:00 pm)
Monthly service is provided to the city of Temple on the first and third Wednesday
of each month between 8:30 am and 2:00 pm. While these services are on-demand
and door to door, fares are associated with each trip, and reservations and advanced
notice are required.
Georgetown Fixed-Route Action Plan 8.2
During November of 2008, the City of Georgetown partnered with CARTS and
TxDOT to develop a transit pilot program. The Georgetown Fixed-Route Action Plan
was funded using $75,000 from CARTS and was anticipated to last for seven
months. The stated purpose of the service was to design a fixed-route transit service
and implementation plan that would provide services from selected locations within
the City. The program consisted of two separately-funded phases.
The pilot project (Phase 1 and Phase 2) included four buses serving six routes for
seven months of service. The initial startup-up costs included completion of full bus
shelters - including shelter, signage, hub, and bicycle racks – at a total of 5 stops.
8-3
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
Since this was a joint project, many of the startup costs were covered by the grant
from CARTS.
Phase 1 8.3
This phase began on November 28, 2008 and continued through February 7, 2009,
completing the 600 service hours as stated in the Notice to Proceed. The buses
operated two fixed routes, Monday through Saturday between 11:00 am and 8:15 pm
for a total of 9.5 service hours a day. Route 1 began and ended at the Sun City Social
Center and traveled to HEB, Rivery, Wolf Ranch, and the City Lights Theater. Route
2 began and ended at 14th Street and Maple, primarily serving the Central Business
District, HEB (University), Georgetown medical facility, and Target (Wolf Ranch).
The two routes overlapped at the Target located in Wolf Ranch, where people from
Route 1 could access the Central Business District by transferring to Route 2.
Phase I ended with a total of 598.5 hours of transit service. Phase 1 details are shown
in Table 8.1 and the route is shown on Figure 8-1 (blue line).
Program Detail Phase 1
Total Ridership 1,475
Average Riders per day 34.3
Riders per hour (service) 3.4
Riders per hour (bus service) 3.7
Fare box $813
Total Cost to City $21,850
Cost per rider (to City) $14.81
Cost per rider (minus farebox) $14.26
4
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
8-6
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
Lessons Learned 8.4
The lessons learned during this phase were similar to the issues discussed during the public
meetings, including the need for additional stops and expanded operating times. The only
true origin during Phase I was Sun City, and while the buses stopped at many other
locations, they were primarily destination locations as opposed to residential locations. In
addition to the limited service issues, there are “hidden” costs that tend to drive up the
overall costs associated with the implementation of transit services, including advertising,
signage, bus and transit stop maintenance, and other costs not generally associated with the
operation of a transit line. These costs were not included in the estimated $50/hour to
provide service. They are not part of the on-bus service time and are not specifically related
to the bus service itself. These hidden costs are not typically included in the calculation of
“Cost per Rider”, which is the City’s cost in providing the service divided amongst the total
number of riders (i.e. 21,850 divided by 1,475).
With respect to the public comments regarding additional stops and expanded operating
times, the primary concern appears to be the limited time of operation, which made it
difficult for people to get to and from the hospital or other facilities with time-specific
appointments.
Phase 2 8.5
After reviewing the metrics from Phase 1, CARTS and the City began Phase 2 of the pilot
program. Lessons learned from Phase 1 were incorporated into new operating characteristics
for Phase 2, which began on March 2, 2009 and continued through April 11, 2009. During
Phase 2, CARTS operated the same two fixed routes; however, Route 1 (from Sun City)
continued out to SH 195 and came back to Williams Drive via Shell Road, adding three
additional stops in Sun City and one additional stop along Wesleyan. Route 2 added stops at
the Boys and Girls Club, HEB (SH 29) and Caring Place. The days of service were limited to
weekdays and the hours of service were extended to 8am and 8pm. Phase 2 ended with a
total of 888 hours of transit service.
8-7
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
Transit Service Summary 8.6
The pilot program was in service for a total of 1,486.5 hours and the CARTS agreement was
for a total of 1,500 hours. While the project allowed City staff to gain some preliminary
insight into the need and desire for transit service, it was ultimately not cost effective for the
City to develop self-contained (local, within the City service) transit service, so the City
opted to discontinue the program until either funding or demand warrant it.
Future of Georgetown Transit 8.7
It was hoped that the City would
reach the 50,000 residential
threshold during the 2010 United
States Census, which would have
significant implications on both
state and local levels. The City of
Georgetown would then potentially
qualify for more funding
opportunities for transportation,
pedestrian, bicycle and transit
improvements. However, the City
did not meet the 50,000 threshold. The following provides a brief overview of the transit
implications once the City reaches a population of 50,000.
In order to accurately gauge the population impacts, the Texas Transportation Institute
(TTI) completed a report entitled “Estimated Impacts of the 2010 Census on the
Transportation Funding Formula”. In this report, TTI suggests that if the City attains the
50,000 population level, it could become a newly classified Small Urbanized Area, along with
four other cities in the state.
The Small Urbanized Area classification means the City is not tied to the City of Austin and
it becomes a separate Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). This designation has significant
implications on the area, especially with respect to transit capabilities. The City will become
eligible to receive separate funding from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and will
not be combined with Capital Metro. The City is not part of Capital Metro’s service, and
8-8
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
being in the same MSA as Capital Metro would not allow for separate funding (i.e. the
funding of multiple transit agencies within one MSA). The FTA allocation would be up to
50% of operating expenses and potentially 80% of capital expenses. As highlighted in the
report, the newly established areas are not expected to have the ability to allocate the funds
immediately; thus, they may become eligible for transit funds of approximately $200,000. In
addition, the designation does not guarantee the City will receive the funds, but it does allow
them to apply for the funds once a transit district is authorized.
This transit district is important because it gives the City autonomy in determining the future
of their transit program, developing their own transit agency, and providing service directly
to the citizens.
Under this new designation, the City would develop its own transit system or connect to
existing Capital Metro system. The City needs good transit service – locally and regionally –
to provide its citizens with mobility choices. There are on-going discussions taking place that
would make the City of Georgetown the northern terminus of the proposed Austin-San
Antonio Commuter Rail Line – Lone Star Rail District (LSRD). The location currently under
consideration is near the intersection of FM 1460 and SE Inner Loop; however, the
completion date and funding mechanisms are yet to be determined and the City could
potentially have its own transit system prior to this date.
The Lone Star Rail District’s Environmental Impact Study-Notice to Proceed was published
by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). A Record of Decision (ROD) is expected
in 36 months (October 2017). LSRD is working on local funding agreements with
jurisdictions along the preferred route.
In order to develop a more thorough transit understanding and an overall plan, the City
should undertake the initial steps toward the completion of a Master Transit Plan to ensure
that the City is prepared for future transit opportunities as they arise. The City is already
taking steps for the inclusion of transit by moving forward with the development of a TOD
located at the intersection of Inner Loop and FM 1460, and working with the Lone Star Rail
District to ensure the TOD becomes a Lone Star Rail designated stop. The construction of
this TOD can form the spine for on-street transit (bus) operations.
8-9
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
The initial steps should include the following:
Establishment of plan objectives
Determination of transit service operation – partner with surrounding communities
or Georgetown only
Determination of funding availability - locally, regionally, and federally
Determination of areas needing transit connectivity, both locally and regionally
Determination of the major transfer points
Once this information has been gathered and analyzed, the City may begin the process of
developing a Master Transit Plan. This provides the foundation for the City to move
forward, obtain funding and implement the Plan as necessary.
Current Conditions
According to the 2010 Census, the City of Georgetown has a population of 47,400. This
represents a 67% increase between 2000 and 2010. If the City continues to grow at this rate,
it is possible that the City’s population could reach 100,000 residents by 2020. However, the
City’s Planning and Development department estimates the population to be 79,000 by 2020
and exceed 125,000 by 2030. These estimates are consistent with the CAMPO population
model and the updated TDM. This rapid growth and development indicates that the City
should begin considering transit options in its future transportation planning efforts.
9-1
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
The recommended transportation plan for the City of Georgetown has been developed
based on three primary components: community input, community needs and model results.
Subsidiary inputs to the model ultimately determined what recommendations were made,
including forecasted future traffic volumes, network continuity, future developments (based
upon adopted future land use plan), corridor preservation, and access management.
The OTP includes the functional classification determination of new roadway facilities and
the introduction of CSS. The CSS options are not intended to replace the current cross-
sections as defined in the UDC, but are provided as alternatives for a more cohesive
connection between the roadway and adjacent land uses. Ultimately, the OTP will assist in
guiding the orderly development of the current and future transportation network for the
region. It should be noted that the designation between CSS and non-CSS facilities was not
made. CSS options are provided for consideration in addition to the current roadway
classifications and requirements. The four CSS Contexts presented in Chapter 4 seek to
provide a balance between roadway operational characteristics and land use options.
The OTP as presented includes all projects necessary to accommodate the projected 2035
growth and development. Each of these projects should be considered on an annual basis
and as development warrants. The projected Level of Service and traffic volumes are
depicted in Figures 9-1, 9-1a, 9-2, and 9-2a. All improvement options were analyzed,
including roadway widening within existing rights-of-way and construction of new roadway
facilities. Not all options are presented within this updated OTP.
9-2
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
§¨¦35
Georgetown
Round Rock
Cedar Park
¬«29
Weir
¬«195
¬«29
Lake Georgetown
DEL W
E
B
B
B
L
V
D
SHELL R
D
S
U
N
C
I
T
Y
B
L
V
D
AIR
P
O
R
T
R
D
D
B
W
O
O
D
R
D
UNIVERSIT
Y
A
V
E
IN
N
E
R
L
O
O
P
WI
L
L
I
A
M
S
D
R
§¨¦35
2035 Roadway Level of Service
²0 1 2 3 40.5 Miles
Figure 9-1
FM 971
WESTINGH
O
U
S
E
R
D
Georgetown
Georgetown ETJ
Weir
Cedar Park
Round Rock
Lakes
Roads
LOS A
LOS B
LOS C
LOS D
LOS E
LOS F
Pa
t
h
:
G
:
\
0
5
7
3
.
0
0
3
.
0
0
1
F
i
n
a
l
i
z
e
O
T
P
U
p
d
a
t
e
s
\
0
7
.
0
0
C
A
D
D
\
R
e
v
i
s
e
d
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
s
_
2
0
1
4
_
1
2
_
1
1
\
9
-
1
2
0
3
5
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
L
e
v
e
l
-
o
f
-
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
.
m
x
d
FM 1460
RM 2243
Subject to change per review
9-3
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
§¨¦35
§¨¦35
Georgetown
Round Rock
Cedar Park
¬«29
Weir
¬«195
¬«29
Lake Georgetown
40000
11000
8400
2600
71000
54000
17000
230000
8000
51000
39000
84000
75000
3000072000
43000
2035 Traffic Volumes
²0 1 2 3 40.5 Miles
Figure 9-2
RM 2243 FM 1460
FM 971
University Av
e
.
Inner Loop
CR 150
Westinghous
e
R
d
.
D
B
W
o
o
d
R
d
.
Willi
a
m
s
D
r
.
Airp
o
r
t
R
d
.
Shell Rd.Del Web
b
B
l
v
d
.
S
u
n
C
i
t
y
B
l
v
d
.
Georgetown
Georgetown ETJ
Lakes
Weir
Cedar Park
Round Rock
Roads
Traffic Volume
0 - 10,000
10,001 - 25,000
25,001 - 50,000
50,001 - 75,000
75,001 - 100,000+
Pa
t
h
:
G
:
\
0
5
7
3
.
0
0
3
.
0
0
1
F
i
n
a
l
i
z
e
O
T
P
U
p
d
a
t
e
s
\
0
7
.
0
0
C
A
D
D
\
R
e
v
i
s
e
d
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
s
_
2
0
1
4
_
1
2
_
1
1
\
9
-
2
2
0
3
5
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
V
o
l
u
m
e
s
.
m
x
d
Subject to change per review
9-4
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
§¨¦35
§¨¦35
Georgetown
Round Rock
Cedar Park
¬«29
Weir
¬«195
¬«29
Lake Georgetown
40000
11000
8400
2600
71000
54000
17000
230000
8000
51000
39000
84000
75000
3000072000
43000
2035 Traffic Volumes
²0 1 2 3 40.5 Miles
Figure 9-2
RM 2243 FM 1460
FM 971
University Av
e
.
Inner Loop
CR 150
Westinghous
e
R
d
.
D
B
W
o
o
d
R
d
.
Willi
a
m
s
D
r
.
Airp
o
r
t
R
d
.
Shell Rd.Del We
b
b
B
l
v
d
.
S
u
n
C
i
t
y
B
l
v
d
.
Georgetown
Georgetown ETJ
Lakes
Weir
Cedar Park
Round Rock
Roads
Traffic Volume
0 - 10,000
10,001 - 25,000
25,001 - 50,000
50,001 - 75,000
75,001 - 100,000+
Pa
t
h
:
G
:
\
0
5
7
3
.
0
0
3
.
0
0
1
F
i
n
a
l
i
z
e
O
T
P
U
p
d
a
t
e
s
\
0
7
.
0
0
C
A
D
D
\
R
e
v
i
s
e
d
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
s
_
2
0
1
4
_
1
2
_
1
1
\
9
-
2
2
0
3
5
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
V
o
l
u
m
e
s
.
m
x
d
Subject to change per review
9-5
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
§¨¦35
§¨¦35
Georgetown
¬«29
2035 Traffic Volumes
Central Business District
²0 0.5 1Miles
Figure 9-2aGeorgetown
Georgetown ETJ
Lakes
Weir
Cedar Park
Round Rock
Roads
Traffic Volume
0 - 10,000
10,001 - 25,000
25,001 - 50,000
50,001 - 75,000
75,001 - 100,000+
RM 2243 FM 1460
FM 971
University A
v
e
.
Inner Loop
D
B
W
o
o
d
R
d
.
W
i
l
l
i
a
m
s
D
r
.
Pa
t
h
:
G
:
\
0
5
7
3
.
0
0
3
.
0
0
1
F
i
n
a
l
i
z
e
O
T
P
U
p
d
a
t
e
s
\
0
7
.
0
0
C
A
D
D
\
R
e
v
i
s
e
d
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
s
_
2
0
1
4
_
1
2
_
1
1
\
9
-
2
a
2
0
3
5
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
V
o
l
u
m
e
s
.
m
x
d
Subject to change per review
9-6
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
Plan Recommendations 9.1
The recommendations included in this Plan are for roadway extensions, widening and
construction of new roadways, including the implementation of Context Sensitive Solutions
and the development of a Bike Master Plan While many of the recommendations have been
previously identified, there are a number of new projects that have developed because of the
growth and development that has occurred and is projected to continue to occur. All
identified projects are listed in Table 5.2 and represented in Figure 5-1 in Chapter 5. Each
project will undergo an annual review to determine whether it can and should be funded.
Many of the projects will be completed as development warrants and not necessarily based
upon current demands. The 2035 Proposed Thoroughfare Plan is shown in Figure 9-3,
representing the future functional classification of the roadways based on the improvements
recommended in Chapter 5.
9-7
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
§¨¦35
§¨¦35
Georgetown
Round Rock
Cedar Park
¬«29
Weir
¬«195
¬«29
Lake Georgetown
Proposed 2035
Thoroughfare Plan
Figure 9-3
FI
L
E
P
A
T
H
:
G
:
\
0
5
7
3
.
0
0
3
.
0
0
0
O
T
P
U
p
d
a
t
e
\
0
7
.
0
0
C
A
D
D
\
G
I
S
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
s
\
E
S
-
4
2
0
3
5
F
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
C
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
.
m
x
d
FM 971
UNIVERSITY
A
V
E
INNER LOO
P
WESTINGH
O
U
S
E
R
D
D
B
W
O
O
D
R
D
WI
L
L
I
A
M
S
D
R
AIR
P
O
R
T
R
D
SHELL R
D
DEL W
E
B
B
B
L
V
D
S
U
N
C
I
T
Y
B
L
V
D
Freeways/Frontage Roads
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
Local Roads
Georgetown
Georgetown ETJ
Cedar Park
Round Rock
Weir
F
M
1
4
6
0
RM 2243
²0 1 2Miles
9-8
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
Effectiveness of Transportation Plan Recommendations 9.2
The effectiveness of the proposed transportation plan recommendations can be evaluated by
reviewing and comparing the increase in lane miles and resulting roadway capacities. A
comparison between the existing network and the proposed network is presented in Table
9.1. As shown in the table, implementing of all recommended improvements by year 2035
will result in an additional 440 lanes miles, representing a 56% increase in available capacity.
Functional Class Lane Miles Percent Increase Existing Proposed
IH 35 196 204 8 (4%)
Other Freeways 87 157 70 (80%)
Major Arterial 184 400 216 (117 %)
Minor Arterial 129 205 76 (59%)
Collector 191 261 70 (37%)
TOTAL 787 1,227 440 (56%)
Multi-Modal Options 9.3
As part of the OTP, a review of existing multi-modal options was completed. This review
included pedestrian, bicycle and transit opportunities.
Pedestrian Needs
The Sidewalk Master Plan is under development and adoption is expected in early 2015 and
will identify design and compliance deficiencies, evaluate future program requirements and
develop a ten year implementation plan.
Bicycle Needs
The City of Georgetown has limited bicycle accommodations both on- and off-street. Given
the existing roadway operational characteristics and right-of-way constraints, there is also
limited availability for the construction of on-street accommodations. The City has made
accommodations for bicycles within many of the existing parks, but access to and from the
parks is limited.
While many of the newer outlying developments have made provisions for bicycle lanes or
off system trails, the possibilities are more limited in the CBD. Through the development of
9-9
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
the updated OTP, the City is working toward the development and implementation of a
bicycle master plan. The plan presented in Chapter 7 lays the preliminary groundwork upon
which a master plan can be completed. A number of recommendations are made with
respect to connectivity and regional access, but a more thorough analysis and review is
needed to designate specific routes. Once the desired routes have been established, the City
can require accommodations and provisions to be met at the time of development or the
City can make the improvements themselves. As with the Sidewalk Plan, the City should
initially focus on the needs of the priority elements, especially elementary schools and parks.
Overall Corridor Management and Preservation 9.4
The projected evolution of the City’s roadway network and the need for future connections
necessitate the management of each corridor. The preservation of the aesthetics and
character of each corridor can be accomplished through access management,
implementation of Context Sensitive Solutions, right-of-way preservation, and minimization
of growth and development along the corridors.
Access Management 9.5
Access management is an important component of corridor management. Access
management is protection of corridor functionality by controlling adjacent property owner
access. Proper access management techniques serve to limit and separate vehicle, pedestrian
and bicycle conflicts; reduce sudden vehicle deceleration locations; limit turning movement
from through lanes; facilitate good signal progression through intersection spacing control;
and accommodate ingress/egress traffic movements that do not adversely impact the
traveling public. Many of the access management techniques already in place are also
components of CSS design.
Context Sensitive Solutions 9.6
In an effort to coordinate transportation engineering and planning efforts, a national
dialogue has been established to move toward the application of CSS to new roadway
projects. CSS is a philosophy that guides public agencies and private entities in all phases of
project development, from planning through project scoping, design and into construction
and maintenance. CSS strives for outcomes that meet transportation service and safety
9-10
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
needs, as well as environmental, scenic, aesthetic, cultural, natural resource and community
needs. Context sensitive projects recognize community goals, and are planned, scoped,
designed, built and maintained while minimizing disruption to the community and the
environment. CSS is not an aesthetic treatment; rather, it involves development of a
transportation solution that fits into the project’s surroundings.
Transportation Improvement Program 9.7
As part of the updated OTP, a revised Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
approval process has been developed. The City uses the TIP process to identify
transportation programs and projects that are to be implemented on a five year plan. The
TIP is reviewed annually to ensure each project is still necessary and funding is available
through the City or the Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation (GTEC).
Projects that have economic development implications are funded through GTEC when
possible. The others are funded through the traditional TIP process with City and County
funds, CAMPO, TxDOT or Bond funds. The TIP elements will remain the same, but the
process will be altered.
TIP projects must continue to meet certain criteria to be implemented within the five-year
program cycle, be consistent with state/regional/local transportation plans and conform to
the state, regional, and/or local planning requirements. Proposed projects are not inclusive
of general maintenance and local street improvements; however, they must include the
following:
Roadway classification of Collector, Arterial or Freeway
Intersection or safety improvements along the above roadways
New Collectors, Arterials or Freeway locations, or
Transit Improvements
Not all projects can be funded within the first cycle; therefore, those not funded will be
included within the updated OTP for consideration of future funding. Also, identifying
roadway improvements and new locations in the OTP allows for land planners to more
appropriately plan for future roadway considerations. While all projects must be on the
9-11
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
City’s Plan, those with regional significance will be forwarded to CAMPO, TxDOT and
Williamson County for inclusion in their transportation plan.
The TIP details transportation improvements on a five-year basis, but annual plan
amendment is recommended, allowing city planners to account for changes in development
patterns.
TIP Process 9.8
The proposed TIP process begins with the presentation of each transportation improvement
to the GTEC Board. If the Board determines the project to be eligible for funding, it
becomes part of the TIP. If the project is not eligible, City staff will prepare a detailed data
sheet for the proposed improvement so that it can be reviewed for possible inclusion in the
TIP at a later date.
Adoption and Implementation of Sidewalk Master Plan 9.9
Now that the City of Georgetown Sidewalk Master Plan has been completed, it must be
adopted by the City of Georgetown. This will allow for the implementation of the proposed
sidewalk projects. Currently, the Plan has identified 144 miles of existing sidewalks, 6 percent
with limited failures and 7 percent as failing or nonfunctional. The expected cost of the
Priority 1 sidewalk projects totals $10.1 million. Key areas of these projects include
downtown, the connection to Southwestern University, University Avenue, Second Street,
South Austin Avenue and Old Town Southwest. It is important that the plan be revisited on
an annual basis to review the projects and include regionally significant developments. Land
planning and development is a continual process and the plan should be revised annually to
ensure that the City, GTEC and GTAB are addressing all needed sidewalk improvements.
Completion, Adoption and Implementation of Bicycle Master Plan 9.10
As discussed in Section 7, a City of Georgetown Sidewalk Master Plan is recommended.
Multiple design options are available to the City, however meeting with residents and
identifying key areas to be improved will be part of the plan creation process. Once this plan
is completed and adopted by the City of Georgetown, this will allow for the implementation
of the proposed bicycle projects. It is also important that the plan be revisited on an annual
basis to review the projects in the plan and include regionally significant developments.
9-12
Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown
February 2015 Overall Transportation Plan Update
Again, because land planning and development is a continual process; the plan should be
revised annually to ensure that the City, GTEC and GTAB are addressing all needed bicycle
improvements.
Adoption of Transportation Plan 9.11
Once the updated OTP is completed, it must be adopted by the City of Georgetown. This
will allow for the implementation of the proposed roadway projects. It is also important that
the plan be revisited on an annual basis to review the projects in the TIP and include
regionally significant developments. Land planning and development is a continual process
and the TDM should be revised annually to ensure that the City, GTEC and GTAB are
addressing all needed roadway improvements. Also, with the completion of new
developments, the City can easily determine impacts to the surrounding roadway network.
Conclusions 9.12
This updated Georgetown OTP builds on the framework of the 2004 OTP. The TDM was
revised using the CAMPO 2035 Plan, reflecting socio-economic, residential and commercial
changes in the region. The updated OTP provides the guidelines for future growth and
development of the transportation network for the City of Georgetown. Effective
implementation of the OTP requires continual coordination between all entities – City,
Local, State, and Federal, as well as local residents. Each of these entities impacts the
funding available to the City for roadway improvements.