Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_GTAB_09.12.2014Notice of Meeting for the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board and the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown September 12, 2014 at 10:00 AM at GMC, 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. – Curtis Benkendorfer, Acting 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 August 8, 2014. - Jana Kern – GTAB Board Liaison G Discussion and possible recommendation to Council for acceptance of the Southeast Inner Loop Corridor Study Draft Final Report as Final and adoption of a proposed alignment of the Southwest Bypass to Southeast Inner Loop roadway, inclusive of proposed connectivity with I 35. – Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer, and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director. 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 __________________, 2014, 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 SUBJECT: 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. ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: n/a SUBMITTED BY: Jana Kern City of Georgetown, Texas SUBJECT: Introduction of Visitors ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: n/a SUBMITTED BY: Jana Kern City of Georgetown, Texas SUBJECT: Industry/CAMPO/TXDOT Updates ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: n/a SUBMITTED BY: Jana Kern City of Georgetown, Texas 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 MS4 Permit Update N Austin Avenue Sidewalk Improvements Shell Road at Westbury-Bellaire - Signal Improvements Sidewalk Master Plan Smith Branch Southeast Inner Loop Corridor Study 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: N/A SUBMITTED BY: Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer ATTACHMENTS: Description Type GTAB Updates Exhibit GTEC Project Status Report Exhibit Austin Avenue – Bridge Evaluations   (North and South San Gabriel Rivers)  Project No. TBD     TIP Project No. N/A  September 2014  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    North San Gabriel River Bridge South San Gabriel River Bridge    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.  Surveying  N/A (TBD)  Environmental/  Archeological  TBD during Phase II  Rights of Way Existing  Utility  Relocations  TBD (future)  Construction TBD  Other Issues Candidate project for May 2015 Bond Program election  Project submitted for CAMPO funding    FM 971 at Austin Avenue  Realignment Intersection Improvements  Project No. 1BZ     TIP No. QQ1  September 2014  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 go IH 35  to Austin Avenue, to Georgetown High School 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  September 2014  Unchanged  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 Ongoing  Other Issues None    FM 1460  Quail Valley Drive to University Drive  Project No. 5RB     TIP No. EEa, EEb & EEc  September 2014  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  Environmental approved with Project Schematic.  Rights of Way All appraisals are complete.  Final offers have been made  for all ROW parcels.  The paperwork has been filed for all parcels requiring  condemnation.  Acquired: 29  Pending: 5  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    Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit  September 2014    Project Description Develop a multi‐year implementation plan based on existing and cost effective  future storm water management practices in order to comply with the Texas  Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Municipal Separate Storm  Sewer System (MS4) Permit.  Purpose On December 11, 2013, the TCEQ adopted rules for newly regulated MS4s  based on the 2010 Census designation of Urbanized Areas.  The City of  Georgetown is now part of Austin Large Urban Area based on those  designations.  Our 180 days to submit the Notice of Intent (NOI) and Storm  water Management Plan (SWMP) began on December 11, 2013.  The City of  Georgetown (City) has engaged HDR Engineering, Inc. (Engineer) to assist the  City with development of its Storm Water Management Program (SWMP) as a  result of the Cityʹs recent designation as a MS4 operator.  Initial services  include a review of available storm water program and water quality  information, a series of meetings with City departments and a City facility  review.  Permit submittal deadline to the TCEQ is June 11, 2014.  Project Managers Nat Waggoner, PMP®  Engineer/Engineers HDR, Inc.     Task Status / Issues  Initiation Scope of Services negotiations February 2014 – Completed    Planning February/March 2014 – Completed  Execution  Review and recommendation to Council by GTAB May 9, 2013 –   Completed   Adoption by Council May 27, 2014 – Completed   Submittal to TCEQ June 11, 2014 – Completed  Monitoring Public Notice of TCEQ Preliminary Determination‐ Received 25 August 2014   Comment period begins on the first date the notice is published and  ends 30 days later. ~ September 25th, 2014   If significant public interest exists, the TCEQ executive director will  direct the applicant to publish notice of the meeting and to hold the  public meeting.   Applicant must file with the Chief Clerk a copy and an affidavit of the  publication of notice(s) within 60 days of receiving the written  instructions from the Office of Chief Clerk  ~  October 25th, 2014   Year 1 begins October 1st 2014 and ends October 1st, 2015. End of year  report is due in December 2015.  Other Issues None    N Austin Avenue Sidewalk Improvements  Rec Center to Georgetown High School  Project No. 1CV     TIP No. None  September 2014  Project Description Design and preparation of final plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E) for the sidewalk  improvements along N. Austin Avenue between the Georgetown Recreational Center and  Georgetown High School.  Purpose To provide a safe pedestrian route along North Austin avenue.  Project Managers Bill Dryden, P.E.  Engineer URS Corporation    Element Status / Issues  Design Complete  Environmental/  Archeological  Complete  Rights of Way None  Utility Relocations None  Construction Construction ongoing; Contractor approximately 60% complete.  Other Issues None pending.    Shell Road Signal Improvements  Shell Road at Westbury Lane/Bellaire Drive  Project No. N/A     TIP No. None  September 2014  Project Description   Design and preparation of Plans, Specifications and Estimate for the construction  of signal improvements for the ultimate intersection of Shell Road at Westbury  Lane/Bellaire Drive and to determine future additional rights‐of‐way needs north  of the intersection.  Purpose To better manage traffic movements through and within the intersection.  Project Manager Bill Dryden, P.E.  Engineer Brown and Gay Engineers, Inc.      Element Status / Issues  Design Complete  Surveying Complete  Environmental/  Archeological  Complete  Rights of Way Complete  Utility Relocations Complete  Construction Project Complete  Other Issues Staff will collect new traffic count and speed data late‐September to evaluate  the impact of the signal.    Sidewalk Master Plan and Public Facility Access Audit September 2014 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 Managers Nat Waggoner, PMP® Engineer HDR, Inc. Task Status / Issues Initiation - Task 1.3 – Project Kick Off Meeting completed May 15, 2014. Planning - Task 4.4 – Coordinating Documents completed. Planning Open House #1 Execution - Schedule of Deliverables 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 Ongoing Parks and Amenities Survey (NOT YET FUNDED) Oct-14 Nov-14 Expected Government and Public Stakeholder Meetings May-14 Jan-15 Public Meetings and Hearings Periodic thru Jan-15 ADA Transition Plan Update to Council Targeting Jan-15 Other Notes ADA • ADA TF Meeting 9/10/2014. Carina Reason, a representative of City’s Risk Management/Employee Safety and Human Resources added to City TF staff • The sidewalk accessibility survey is complete. A draft of findings was delivered August 19th. • Government owned buildings ADA compliance review complete. Draft reports delivered August 29th and the final priority report is expected October 31st. • A public meeting with the ADA Task Force to present a project overview and gather initial prioritization guidance was held August 13th. Project Website • Launched 7/15/2014 Open House #1 • 30 Sept 2014, City Council Chambers from 530-730. Individual board liaisons are encouraged to invite their respective boards. Staff highly encourages attendance from City Council, GTAB and GTEC. Deficiency Quantities Non-Accessible Sidewalk 5,696 lf Non-Accessible Curb Ramps 174 each Non-Accessible Pedestrian Crosswalks 17 each Protruding Objects 174 each Non-Accessible Pedestrian Push Buttons 8 each Non-Accessible Doors 55 each Non-Accessible Ramps 7 each Non-Accessible Driveways 67 each Smith Branch  September 2014  Project Description Voluntary acquisition of eight (8) properties with finished floor elevations below  the base flood elevation in the Smith Branch Watershed  Purpose To reduce future flood damage risk for homes below the 100‐year floodplain  elevation.  Project Managers Wesley Wright, P.E., and Terri Calhoun, SR/WA, R/W‐NAC  Engineer Kasberg, Patrick, & Associates (Flood Study)/Spitzer & Associates (Real Estate)      Element Status / Issues  Design Completed – Flood Study completed in 2013  Environmental/  Archeological  Possible asbestos abatement on properties upon acquisition. TBD.    Property  Acquisition  GTAB and Council approved counter‐offers on all eight  (8) properties.  Contracts are signed.  Anticipate closing  on all parcels by 9/30/14.  This is a willing buyer – willing  seller program and all identified properties are being  acquired.    Acquired: 0  Pending: 8  Condemnation: 0  Total: 8  Utility Relocations Will require termination of services  Construction Upon acquisition of properties, structures will be demolished and the lot returned  to grass.    Other Issues None Pending    Southeast Inner Loop Corridor Study  (IH 35 to Rockride Lane)  Project No. None     Project No. None  September 2014  Project Description   Develop preliminary design schematic alternatives, perform preliminary  engineering and prepare an engineering report for the Southeast Inner Loop  Schematic Design from IH 35 to Rockride Lane (CR 110) and Sam Houston Avenue.  Purpose To determine ultimate alignment, interim and ultimate engineer’s estimates of  probable project costs and ROW needs for the future SH 29 Bypass, connecting the  westerly route (SH 29 to IH 35) with Southeast Inner Loop and Sam Houston  Avenue.  Project Manager Bill Dryden, P.E.  Engineer Kasberg Patrick and Associates      Element Status / Issues  Design Draft Preliminary Report was presented to GTAB in March.  Meetings with  adjacent/affected land owners on‐going.  Draft Final Report will be returned to GTAB in September for Board  discussions and possible recommendation of adoption by Council.  Surveying  TBD (future)  Environmental/  Archeological  TBD (future)  Rights of Way To be conceptually established during the preliminary schematic phase and  further refined through the design phases.  Utility Relocations TBD (future)  Construction TBD (future)  Other Issues Staff has met with the public sector stakeholders (City, TxDOT and  WilCo) and their various engineering firms working along the Southwest  Bypass/SE Inner Loop connection and the I 35 corridor.    Southwest Bypass Project   (RM 2243 to IH 35)  Project No. 1CA     Project No. 14c  September 2014  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  September 2014  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  September 2014  Project Description 2012/13‐2014 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  (Halff)  2nd at Austin Avenue intersection improvement along with 6th Street  (Austin Ave. to Rock) (Smith Contracting) 2nd and 6th Street under  construction.  14th Street staked and scheduled for construction following  utility installation.    (KPA) 2nd St to College St plans are 60% complete.  Stake holder meeting held  on September 2nd at Engineer office to explain proposed street, sidewalk and  park improvements.  Attendance was low but comments were positive.  9th Street  (Main to Rock)  (KPA) (Patin Construction)  Preconstruction held September 3rd.  Notice to  proceed was given and notification/schedule should be provided to businesses  shortly.  Underground work (conduits and storm drain will be installed first  followed by road, curb and sidewalk improvements.  Chip Seal  The contractor Cholla began on August 6th.  Work took approximately two  weeks.  Considering temperatures were extremely high and drying times were  extended, the two course treatments with Quick Set treatment has resulted in  aesthetically pleasing, quiet, chip free surfaces. A few reported chipped  windshields, but very few complaints.  Staff is extremely pleased with the new  specifications and resulting product and plan to continue to refine the  process.  Fog Seal Fog Seal started June 2nd.  Complete.  Cutler/overlay All work completed by mid‐July.  Downtown merchants and residents provided positive feedback.  Pavement  Evaluation  KPA Engineering: pavement evaluation/scoring and update of 5 year CIP  reflecting changes and additions is waiting for Fugro Engineering.  Fugro sent  email estimating all pavement scores should be available by end of September.       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 City paid TxDOT $2,500,000 on 9/16/2008. Complete 2,500,000 2,500,000 0 0 0 Southeast Arterial 1 (Sam Houston Avenue) #12 5QG Project Complete. One ROW parcel has remaining issues. 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 and Guy/Knight properties. Appraisals have been updated. Wolf property – Acquisition complete. Project fencing to begin as soon as practicable. 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 1,136,178 1,099,076 37,102 571,178 479,588 91,590 NB Frontage Road (2338 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 Bid were received by TxDOT in August 2014; 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. 29 of 36 Parcels have been acquired. On Schedule 11,788,230 5,348,470 6,439,760 6,727,539 2,315,896 4,411,643 TCS/RR Easement 5RD Complete 1,500,000 1,503,148 -3,148 0 0 FM 971 / Washam 5RE GTEC Portion complete Complete 100,000 0 100,000 0 0 Rivery Road 5RF Alignment adopted by Council. Complete 779,000 29,000 750,000 750,000 0 750,000 Snead Drive 5QZ Engineer has submitted the 95% design for review. Working with land owner for property to construct water quality pond. On Schedule 825,100 87,000 738,100 825,100 87,000 738,100 Mays Street Extension 5RI Engineering obtaining rights-of-entry for surveying and geotechnical investigations; beginning schematic design On Schedule 196,000 196,000 0 196,000 196,000 0 IH 35/ Hwy 29 Intersection 5RJ 650,000 0 650,000 650,000 0 650,000 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) GTEC PROJECT UPDATE AND STATUS REPORT September 2014 Project to Date Current Year Budget (13/14) L:\Global\CIP Agenda Form\GTEC Status Report\2014\GTEC - Project Status - 2014-08.xlsx Page 1 of 1 9/3/2014 City of Georgetown, Texas SUBJECT: Discussion regarding the Airport Project Progress Report and time lines. – Curtis Benkendorfer, Acting 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 for Curtis Benkendorfer ATTACHMENTS: Description Type CIP Airfiled Electrical Improvements Backup Material Tower Backup Material Financial Backup Material Airfield Electrical Improvements Project No. 1314GRGTN September 2014 Project Description FY2014 project: Runways / taxiways lighting and signage. Purpose Improved safety and reliability of airport lighting. Project Manager Curtis Benkendorfer, Acting Airport Manager Engineer Garver Engineering Notes: Contractor’s notice to procure: July 21, 2014 Estimated construction commencement: Late September/Early October 2014 Construction period: 60 calendar days Estimated construction completion: December 2014 Georgetown Municipal Airport Contract Tower Program Update September 2014 Project Description Georgetown Tower Update Purpose Tower Monthly Report Project Manager Curtis Benkendorfer, Acting Airport Manager Engineer Notes: Tower Facility Monthly Report Certification was performed on the new Radar system on August 15, 2014 No accidents or incidents to report as of August 29, 2014 Item ____ Page _____ Prepared by: LKemp 9/2/2014 L:\Division\finance\Share2\AGENDA\GTAB\201407-July Airport Georgetown Municipal Airport As of July 31, 2014 A - B = C B - D = E Income Statement A B C D E 2013/2014 Budget 2013/2014 Preliminary Projections July 31, 2014 Year To Date % Projections $ July 31, 2013 Year To Date $% Beginning Fund Balance (A)347,793 363,339 363,339 100%- 517,632 (154,293) -30% Revenue: Fuel Sales 2,421,492 2,421,492 2,069,487 85%352,005 1,909,313 160,174 8% Fuel Expense (2,228,000) (2,228,000) (1,847,182) 83%(380,818) (1,724,908) (122,274) 7% Net Fuel Revenues 193,492 193,492 222,305 115%(28,813) 184,406 37,900 21% Leases & Rentals (T-Hangers, Ground leases & Tie downs)571,700 571,700 482,444 84%89,256 465,805 16,638 4% Settlement - AJS Drainage 110,000 110,000 110,000 100%- - 110,000 100% Bankruptcy - Georgetown Jet Center - 94,952 98,801 (3,849) - 98,801 100% Interest 4,000 4,000 185 5%3,815 1,123 (938) -84% Other Revenue- Ad Valorem tax, special events & discounts 39,150 39,421 2,407 6%37,014 9,366 (6,958) -74% Grant - 6,164 (6,164) -100% Transfer In - CIP 131,000 131,000 98,250 75%32,750 - 98,250 100% Total Revenue 1,049,342 1,144,565 1,014,393 89%130,172 666,863 347,530 52% Operating Expense: Transfer out 27,195 27,195 20,396 75%(6,799) - (20,396) -100% Personnel 318,447 300,599 224,416 75%(76,183) 207,077 (17,339) -8% (B)Operations 535,631 617,718 575,000 93%(42,718) 459,600 (115,400) -25% Furniture & equipment - - 561 561 - (561) -100% Debt service 169,413 169,413 11,472 7%(157,941) 18,394 6,922 38% Capital Improvement Program Improvements, Runway 20,000 10,667 10,667 100%0 2,000 (8,667) 0% (C)Runway 1836 lights 111,000 163,200 163,200 100%- - (163,200) -100% AJS Draining improvements 110,000 110,000 103,235 94%(6,765) - (103,235) -100% Medium intensity taxiway lights 87,500 87,500 87,501 100%1 - (87,501) -100% Total Expense 1,379,186 1,486,292 1,196,448 80%(289,844) 687,071 (509,377) -74% Fund Balance 17,949 21,612 181,284 497,424 Note: Contingency Reserve = $150,000. Funds not available, covered by the Water Fund for FY 2013/14. (A)Actual beginning fund balance. (B)Legal accounts for 71% or $58,124 of the operations budget increase of $82,086. (C)City's 10% share increased because project bids came in higher than projected. Operating Statistics July July 2014 2013 Performance/volumetric indicators Y-T-D Y-T-D Variance Gallons of Fuel Sold 2014 2013 AVGAS gallons sold 19,338 18,174 170,612 199,412 (28,800) -14% JET -A gallons sold 40,033 23,605 362,073 273,830 88,243 32% Total Gallons Sold 59,371 41,779 532,685 473,242 59,443 13% Take Offs and Landings Day*Night* VFR 5,259 150 54,562 49,433 5,129 10% IFR 517 24 4,981 6,452 (1,471) -23% Total Take Offs/Landings 5,776 174 59,543 55,885 3,658 7% *This does not include flyover operations (i.e. handoffs from ABIA approach/departure control to KGTU tower then onto the next ATC.). Variance Year to Date Variance Projections For the Month of: July CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS AIRPORT FUND COMPARATIVE STATEMENTS TOTALS 2014 2013 2012 as of 7/31/14 Per CAFR Per CAFR ASSETS: Current Assets: Cash and cash equivalents *23,350$ 81,524$ 187,275$ Investments *- 103,757 238,349 Accounts receivable: Services (net of allowance for uncollectibles)241,488 254,323 264,620 Inventories 44,927 44,927 52,847 Total current assets 309,766 484,531 743,091 Noncurrent Assets: Deferred charges - bond issuance costs (10,179) - 36,709 Total noncurrent assets (10,179)- 36,709 Property and Equipment: Land and land rights 981,500 981,500 981,500 Distribution system 79,335 79,335 79,335 Buildings and improvements 9,641,425 9,641,425 9,577,597 Machinery, furniture and equipment 137,577 137,577 137,577 Total cost property and equipment 10,839,837 10,839,837 10,776,009 Less accumulated depreciation (6,736,453)(6,736,453)(6,580,854) Net property and equipment 4,103,384 4,103,384 4,195,155 TOTAL ASSETS 4,402,971$ 4,587,915$ 4,974,955$ LIABILITIES AND NET ASSETS: Liabilities: Current liabilities: Accounts payable 72,960 67,661 97,781 Accrued employee benefits 8,074 8,074 7,233 Current portion of long-term debt 127,773 137,951 125,778 Accrued interest 3,858 3,858 4,578 Total current liabilities 212,664 217,544 235,370 Long term liabilities: Accrued employee benefits 11,586 11,586 10,565 Long-term debt 614,165 614,165 739,265 Total noncurrent liabilities 625,751 625,751 749,830 Total liabilities 838,416 843,295 985,200 Net Assets: Invested in capital assets (net of related debt)3,351,269 3,351,269 3,330,111 Unrestricted 213,286 393,351 659,644 Total net assets 3,564,555 3,744,620 3,989,755 TOTAL LIABILITIES AND NET ASSETS 4,402,971$ 4,587,915$ 4,974,955$ *City operates on a consolidated cash basis. Due to timing of individual fund receivables and payables, cash and investment fund balances may fluctuate. City of Georgetown, Texas SUBJECT: Review and possible action to approve the minutes from the Regular GTAB Board meeting held on August 8, 2014. - Jana Kern – GTAB Board Liaison ITEM SUMMARY: Board to review and revise and/or approve the minutes from the regular meeting held on August 8, 2014. FINANCIAL IMPACT: n/a SUBMITTED BY: jana kern ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Draft Minutes Backup Material Notice of Meeting of the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board and the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas August 08, 2014 The City of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you require assistance in participation 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. Board Members Present: Truman Hunt – Chair, Rachel Jonrowe – Vice Chair, John Hesser – Secretary, Ray Armour, Chris H’Luz, Scott Rankin Board Members Absent: David Johnson, Steve Johnston, John Pettitt, Staff Present: Paul Brandenburg, Jim Briggs, Ed Polasek, Wesley Wright, Mike Babin, Mark Miller, Sasha Lockamy, Chris Foster, Paul Diaz, Nat Waggoner, Curtis Benkendorfer, Laura Wilkins, Skye Masson Others Present: Carl Norris, John Milford, Beth Jenkins, Daryl Dressler, Steven E. Haskett, Pablo Holguin, Bob Burczak - ACC members, Lacy Keeling – Genesis Flight Academy, Ron Bindas – Airport User, Mark Ramseur – Pape-Dawson, Matt Loeschman – The Williamson County Sun, Bruce Barton – Omni Properties Inc., Mark Allen – Hall Properties Regular Session A. Call to Order – Mr. Truman Hunt called the regular GTAB Board meeting to order on Friday, August 8, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to convene an 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: Polasek gave update. CAMPO - To have a decision on STP- MM by October Board Meeting. TxDOT - Mike Walker Environmental Austin District announced retirement. His retirement is a loss to TxDOT and the region. No other info about his replacement. Road Bond Committee has met three times so far. Reviewing project list. Going through the list and including more detailed questions about projects. This info is very useful. Will help in making recommendations. 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. Updates given by Dryden Miller presented info from the paving report. Waggoner gave update on Downtown Sidewalk Plan – Side Walk Open House to be held on September 25th at the Library - Friends Room from 5:00 until 7:00 PM. Safe Routes to School 10/8/14 International Walk to School Day – idea to publicize this – partner with GISD, police and maybe PTA’s to encourage participation of the neighborhoods around Mitchell School for children to walk to school on that day. Signed CDBG Task Order for Sidewalk projects from IH-35 to just east of Scenic along south side of University and another portion from around the Madellia Hilliard center to MLK. Comment from Jonrowe that she has received positive feedback on Austin Avenue sidewalk. E. Discussion regarding the Airport Project Progress Report and Time Lines. – Curtis Benkendorfer, Acting Airport Manager and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director. The following persons signed up and addressed the Board related to this item: Carl Norris John Milford Benkendorfer – gave update on Airport. Legislative Regular Agenda The Board will individually consider and possibly take action on any or all of the following items: F. Review and possible action to approve the minutes from the Regular GTAB Board meeting held on July 11, 2014 – Jana Kern Jonrowe – noticed votes are listed as Approved 6-3 – does not say who was for or against – would like it to say in favor of, against, or unanimous. Motion: by Jonrowe, second by Hesser to approve as amended. Approved as corrected - Unanimous 6-0 (Johnson, Johnston, and Pettitt absent) G. Presentation of questions regarding Lone Star Rail—Steve Fought, Councilmember, District 4 and Paul E. Brandenburg, City Manager Brandenburg – Council Member Fought could not be here. No action necessary by the board. Brandenburg read Council member Fought’s request. Mr. Fought is looking for three things: that the board acknowledge that they have received his request; that the 7 questions/concerns he has are entered into the record; and that staff has a heads-up on these issues as they head into the process with Lone Star Rail. Jonrowe ethics training recently – addressed relationship between Boards and Commissions with Council. Appreciate Council Member Fought’s comments and concerns – but we should be careful not to allow undue influence from Council members during the process. Hesser – Georgetown’s decision affects us directly – would suggest that the Board consider using outside consultant on this to evaluate this decision. Jonrowe - this is not posted for action – possibly add to an agenda later on. Brandenburg – will add this to the next agenda. Armour – These questions bring up other questions - appreciates the questions. Helps possibly save time and think it through better. Jonrowe – just a comment to be aware and not give more weight to those questions from an individual in making decisions for recommendations. NO ACTION TAKEN H. Consideration and possible recommendation on a Texas Water Development Board Flood Protection Planning contract. – Wesley Wright, Systems Engineering Director Wright explained the item. Last Fall submitted grant application for flood plain planning. It was approved a couple of months ago. We budgeted $400,000 next year’s CIP for this. Now we will have a floodplain master plan. Cost sharing 50/50 - we are allowed in-kind contribution so if staff spends time working on this we could receive credit for that and cash out could be a little less – remaining money rolls back into the drainage fund. Water Development Board wants approval before Labor Day – we will bring contract forward for council approval. H’Luz – Was KPA the engineer on this?– Answered by Wright - no KPA was the engineer on the Smith Branch project. Raymond Chan & Assoc. – helped with the evaluation for the grant application – made us aware of the grant and put application together for this. H’Luz – is Smith Branch a part of this? Wright – Yes, we expect the Chan study to build from what has already been done. All modeling to be shared. Motion by Jonrowe, second by Armour to recommend approval. Approved unanimously 6-0 (Johnson, Johnston, Pettitt absent) I. Consideration and possible action to recommend approval of a Sublease Agreement between Aircraft Systems and Manufacturing, Inc. and Genesis Flight Academy, LLC for a portion of the premises at 301 Toledo Trail, Georgetown Texas—Curtis Benkendorfer, Acting Airport Manager and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director. Polasek explained the item. Subleases must be approved by the board and submitted to Council for final approval – staff recommends approval. Question by Armour on the lease rates – clarified by Polasek. Armour - sublease assignable to the City? Polasek – answered with clarification by Masson. Clarification by Masson – we will be paid for all of the property by ASM – the City does own the hangar – City will enter into a new agreement at the end of the lease. Motion by Jonrowe, second by Rankin to recommend approval. Approved unanimously 6-0 (Johnson, Johnston, Pettitt absent) J. Discussion and possible recommendation on Fuel Rates and Fuel Discount Policy at the Georgetown Municipal Airport. - Curtis Benkendorfer, Acting Airport Manager and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director The following persons signed up and addressed the Board related to this item: Beth Jenkins, Daryl Dressler and Steven E. Haskett Polasek explained the item. The discount being discussed is for AvGas only. Council has approved all fuel rates but has never approved a discount policy. Council sets all rates and fees through Special Ordinance or through the budgetary process. What info does the Board need to discuss and or make a decision for recommendation related to a fuel discount? Hesser - What are customers currently paying? Polasek – today $4.95 with discount $4.64 = $0.31 cent discount. Jonrowe – who gets the discount? Polasek – certain hangars, flight schools, large volume, who ever had a pre-pay account. Jenkins - Airport Board had in 2003, suggested a cap on the discount – at 31 cents/gallons. Jonrowe would like to know what other airports are doing. Hesser - Taylor $4.83 - Kyle $5.00 - Austin Exec. - $5.55 – does not appear to be any discounts being given. Polasek – City is on contract – we pay flat rate – no discount from the supplier. Jonrowe - how much has been given in discounts – Diaz approximately $24,000 every year over last 10 years in discounts. Hesser – have we evaluated options? Diaz - yes we have – need direction for business model - as of right now we could lose $200K this next year the way we currently do business. If we adjust operations we could sell less gas but still make a profit. Various comments and questions by Board members. Set the fuel policy and rate as an agenda item for the September GTAB meeting. Polasek – If we want to do an interim rate – staff will need recommendation from the Board to take to council for approval. Brandenburg – Board could recommend that Council approve an interim rate until final policy and rate structure is developed. Hesser would like to propose a temporary rate while staff has opportunity to come up with policy for fuel rate at Airport and come back to GTAB for review. Motion by Hesser, second by Jonrowe to make recommendation to Council to establish an interim rate, developed by staff to allow time for staff and the GTAB Board to develop a policy and rate structure for fuel rates. Further that staff will bring the final policy and rate structure to the GTAB Board for recommendation to Council. Approved unanimously 6-0 (Johnson, Johnston, Pettitt absent) K. Consideration and possible recommendation concerning the transportation elements of the Hillwood Wolf Ranch Development. – Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director and Bridget Chapman, City Attorney Presentation to Board by Polasek. H’Luz 8 foot wide trails – shouldn’t that be 10 foot? Answered by Consultant – 8 foot in line with other city projects. Additional discussion. NO Action on this item Regular Session adjourned at 11:48 am L. Executive Session: In compliance with the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551. Government Code, Vernon’s Texas Codes, Annotated, The items listed below will be discussed in closed session and are subjected to action in regular session. Executive Session - Called to order at 12:02 pm by Hunt Section 551.071 Consultation with Attorney - Airport/Aero Centex – Bridget Chapman, City Attorney Section 551.072 Deliberation Regarding Real Property - Deliberation concerning the proposed purchase of real property in connection with the Smith Branch Drainage Buy-Out Project. – Wesley Wright, Systems Engineering Director and Terri Calhoun, Real Estate Services Coordinator Executive Session adjourned at: 12:32 pm Reconvene Regular Session at: 12:34 pm M. Action from Executive Session – Motion by Jonrowe, second by Hesser to approve as discussed in Executive Session. Approved unanimously 6-0 (Johnson, Johnston, Pettitt absent) Adjournment Motion by Jonrowe, second by Hesser to adjourn the meeting. Meeting adjourned at 12:35 PM. Approved unanimously 6-0 (Johnson, Johnston, Pettitt absent) Approved: Attested: _______________________ ______________________ Truman Hunt - Chair John Hesser – Secretary _________________________________ Jana R. Kern – GTAB Board Liaison City of Georgetown, Texas SUBJECT: Discussion and possible recommendation to Council for acceptance of the Southeast Inner Loop Corridor Study Draft Final Report as Final and adoption of a proposed alignment of the Southwest Bypass to Southeast Inner Loop roadway, inclusive of proposed connectivity with I 35. – Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer, and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director. ITEM SUMMARY: The voters of Georgetown approved bonds in November 2008 for various projects in the City. One of those projects was for the study of a proposed bypass around Georgetown from W. SH 29 to E. SH 29, often referenced as the “smiley face.” As part of the overall corridor analysis, the City entered into an Advanced Funding Agreement (AFA) with the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) to study the portion of Southeast Inner Loop Corridor (The Study) from I 35 to Rockride Lane (formerly CR 110). The City selected the firm of Kasberg, Patrick & Associates, LP, (KPA) of Georgetown, Texas, to provide the preliminary engineering schematic (s) design alignment and report. During the course of The Study, the Engineer was instructed further to develop an acceptable connection with Southwest Bypass west of I 35. KPA and Staff presented a preliminary alignment concept to GTAB in March 2014 and received direction to discuss the alternatives with the adjoining and other affected property owners to consider various alignments with a goal of developing a consensus alignment for Southeast Inner Loop. Staff was also requested to analyze the existing I 35 Intersection at Austin Avenue to determine if the ultimate section could be fit under the Interstate at that location. Based upon those discussions, Staff further coordinated is efforts with representatives from TxDOT, Williamson County and the City. Modeling efforts were analyzed by engineering staffs from all agencies involved (which included KPA with Brown & Gay, HDR and HNTB); each concluding that the ultimate roadway connection would be greater than a 4- or 6-lane roadway that could possibly be fit under and south of the existing interchange. Further, the various engineering firms coordinated on the proposed design which utilizes the existing interchange to the greatest extent practicable. The KPA proposed alignments have been refined and a consensus proposed alignment has been developed. This proposed alignment minimizes impacts to the properties nearest I 35 while still providing an acceptable geometric design which will accommodate the future traffic needs as modeled for the 2035 planning horizon. The proposed alignment connects the western portion of the SH 29 Bypass (“smiley face”) across I 35 and culmination of The Study includes a direct and indirect connections with I 35. KPA has completed the preliminary engineering, proposed schematic design and the draft of the final report. Staff is seeking recommendation from GTAB to Council to adopt The Study, inclusive of the proposed Southeast Inner Loop Corridor the alignment. Council’s acceptance of the proposed alignment will be the guiding document to Staff with the ability to protect and acquire Right of Way (ROW) as development occurs along the corridor and traffic demand increases. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends acceptance of the Southeast Inner Loop Corridor Study and schematic design, inclusive of the proposed alignment of Southeast Inner Loop and its connection with Southwest Bypass with the proposed direct and indirect connections with I 35. The proposed schematic will not require an Overall Transportation Plan amendment, as the alignment falls within the acceptable tolerances of staff approved shifts in alignment due to grade, design or intersection location tolerances, generally an unimproved roadway in the OTP, represents a 2,000-ft. wide corridor in which the roadway could be located. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact at this time. Future probable costs for ROW and construction are included in the report. The final design, ROW acquisition and construction are candidate projects for future bond programs. SUBMITTED BY: Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Final Draft Report Exhibit Attachment D - Exhibits Exhibit City of Georgetown, Texas Southeast Inner Loop Schematic Design: IH 35 to Rockride Lane (CR 110) Preliminary Engineering Report Prepared by Kasberg, Patrick and Associates, LP Consulting Engineers, Texas Firm F-510 1008 South Main Street Georgetown, Texas 78626 September 2014 Table of Contents 1.0 Executive Summary 2.0 Project Purpose & Scope of Report 3.0 Existing Conditions 4.0 Roadway Phasing 5.0 Public Involvement Process 6.0 Traffic Modeling Analysis 7.0 Multi-Use Trail Facility 8.0 Roadway Design Considerations 8.1 Design Standards- Typical Sections 8.2 Intersection Layouts 8.3 Drainage 8.3.1 Background 8.3.2 Hydrologic Methodology 8.3.3 Flood Plain 8.3.4 Miscellaneous 8.4 Utilities 8.4.1 Existing Water Line 8.4.2 Water Line Relocations 8.4.3 Existing Wastewater Line 8.4.4 Wastewater Line Relocations 8.4.5 Dry Utility Conflicts 8.5 Soil Conditions/Pavement Design 8.6 Major Structures 9.0 Rights-of-Way Requirements 9.1 Rights-of-Way Acquisition 9.2 Access Management 10.0 Environmental Impacts – Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone 11.0 Conclusions List of Figures Figure 1: Vicinity and Location Map Figure 2: Ultimate Corridor Alignment Figure 3: SE Inner Loop – Phase I Figure 4: SE Inner Loop – Phase II Figure 5: SE Inner Loop – Ultimate Phase Figure 6: Typical Roadway Cross Section Figure 7: IH 35 Frontage Road & SE Inner Loop Intersection Figure 8: Snead Dr/Blue Springs Blvd & SE Inner Loop Intersection Figure 9: FM 1460 & SE Inner Loop Intersection Figure 10: Maple Street/Sam Houston Blvd & SE Inner Loop Intersection Figure 11: ROW Layout Exhibit List of Tables Table 1: Design Criteria Appendix A. Opinion of Probable Costs – Phase I B. Traffic Modeling Analysis C. Property Owner Written Response D. Project Exhibits List of References Page 1 1.0 Executive Summary This preliminary engineering report (PER) consists of preparing a schematic design and analysis of the Southeast Inner Loop between IH 35 and Rockride Lane (CR 110). The schematic design and analysis was performed to identify the initial and ultimate roadway sections for Southeast Inner Loop within the study area as well as to evaluate the ultimate intersection configuration of FM 1460 and Southeast Inner Loop. This report evaluates the proposed phasing of the Southeast Inner Loop Improvements with associated opinions of probable costs (OPC). Each phase considers vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle design standards. This report addresses preliminary drainage, utility, environmental, and rights-of-way (ROW) needs. The majority of proposed rights-of-way would be required from currently undeveloped properties with open spaces. However, due to the growth patterns in this area, commercial and retail developments are in the planning stages and are rapidly moving towards construction. As a result, rights-of-way acquisition costs are a moving target and changing monthly. Meetings were held with the majority of the impacted property owners along the project route to review the project and address any questions and/or comments they may have.. One of the tasks that came from the property owners meetings was to evaluate the ultimate intersection of Southeast Inner Loop, SH 29 Bypass and IH 35. A coordination meeting was held with representatives from TxDOT, Williamson County and the City to develop a consensus for the proposed ultimate alignment to be presented to GTAB and Council for approval. The proposed alignments have been modified to reflect the consensus among all the impacted entities. The proposed revised ultimate alignment minimizes impacts to the properties nearest IH 35 while still providing an acceptable geometric design which will accommodate the future traffic volumes. This roadway will provide significant regional access to IH 35, SH 29, SH 130 and other regional roadways. Page 2 2.0 Project Purpose & Scope of Report The purpose and need for the schematic design and analysis of the Southeast Inner Loop between IH 35 and Rockride Lane (CR 110) is to provide an analysis of the initial and ultimate roadway sections and alignment of Southeast Inner Loop and to evaluate shifting the future grade separation at the intersection of FM 1460 & Southeast Inner Loop from FM 1460 to the SE Inner Loop. This section of Southeast Inner Loop connects to major transportation projects that are currently under the final planning/design stage or has been recently completed. The Southwest Bypass Project, which is in its final planning/design stage for Phase I, will ultimately move vehicular traffic from SH 29 to IH 35, is located on the western end of the study area for this project. Phase I of the Southwest Bypass Project is from Leander Road to IH 35. Sam Houston Boulevard – Phase I was recently completed and is located on the eastern end of the study area and provides vehicular traffic a direct route from Southeast Inner Loop to SH 130. The ultimate vision for this corridor is to provide an alternate west-east route from IH 35 and areas west of IH 35 to SH 130 that will provide a much need traffic corridor that will provide free flowing traffic movement from western Williamson County to Eastern Williamson County. The proposed roadway project length is approximately 17,600 linear feet along the roadway centerline (See Figure 1 Vicinity & Location Map and Figure 2 Ultimate Corridor Alignment). Fig. 1: Vicinity and Location Map Page 3 Fig. 2: Ultimate Corridor Alignment Contents of this report represent data collection, field review, engineering analysis and public involvement to define the proposed roadway extension alternatives. The primary scope of this report includes preliminary roadway alignment, preliminary engineering for drainage and utilities, and providing opinion of probable costs. This report will provide engineering support of decisions regarding moving this project through design and construction phases. Page 4 3.0 Existing Conditions Existing Southeast Inner Loop at its most western end terminates at the IH 35 Frontage Road. The existing roadway along the project route consists of an undivided roadway with two (2) 12-foot travel lanes and shoulders with varying widths (4-foot min. to 6-foot max.). Southeast Inner Loop intersects seven (7) roadways along this route. Those intersections from west to east respectively are IH 35, Snead Dr/Blue Springs Boulevard, FM 1460, Sam Houston Boulevard, Maple Street, Southwestern Boulevard and Rockride Lane (CR 110). Properties are a mix of land uses, which include currently include commercial and open pasture land with a few residential properties mixed in. The majority of proposed rights-of-way would be required from currently undeveloped properties. However, this corridor is developing rapidly and development projects are in various stages of planning. Rights-of-way and property acquisition costs are variable within this area due to the rate at which the developments are occurring. Page 5 4.0 Roadway Phasing The proposed project is planned in Phases. A traffic modeling analysis was performed for this corridor utilizing the City of Georgetown’s 2035 Travel Demand Model (TDM). The traffic model confirmed the justification for shifting the future grade separation at the intersection of FM 1460 & Southeast Inner Loop from FM 1460 to the Southeast Inner Loop. Based off this justification, the project was proposed to be constructed as three (3) phases. Phase I would consist of constructing a four (4) lane roadway from the frontage road of IH 35 to the intersection of Sam Houston Boulevard and Maple Street. This would include a divided roadway beginning approximately 1,500 linear feet east of the intersection of Snead Drive/Blue Springs Boulevard to approximately 400 linear feet west of the intersection with Sam Houston Boulevard. This section of divided roadway will serve as the future frontage roads for Southeast Inner Loop and will allow for the construction of the bridge structure over FM 1460 that is proposed as part of Phase II. The current intersection of Southeast Inner Loop and Maple Street is proposed to be extended to the north of its current location. Southeast Inner Loop east of the Maple Street Intersection will be reconfigured to transition from its proposed intersection with Maple Street to its current alignment near the Williamson County Child Advocacy Center Building. Southeast Inner Loop is proposed to maintain its current alignment and size from Maple Street to Rockride Lane with the exception of intersection improvements at Southwest Boulevard and Rockride Lane, which will include the addition of left hand turn lanes. (See Figure 2 SE Inner Loop - Phase I) Fig. 3: SE Inner Loop - Phase I Page 6 Phase II of the Southeast Inner Loop Project is proposed to consist of constructing a four (4) lane roadway from the frontage roads terminus just east of Snead Drive/Blue Springs Boulevard to the intersection of Sam Houston Boulevard and Maple Street. This phase will also include the construction of the bridge structure over FM 1460 Intersection. These improvements are proposed to tie into Phase II of Sam Houston Boulevard, which includes a bridge over Maple Street. There is no proposed direct connection to Southeast Inner Loop and Maple Street. (See Figure 3: SE Inner Loop - Phase I) Fig. 4: SE Inner Loop - Phase II The Ultimate Phase of the Southeast Inner Loop Project is proposed to consist of constructing a four (4) lane divided roadway from the frontage roads terminus just east of Snead Drive/Blue Springs Boulevard west to connect with the proposed SH 29 Bypass Project. This is phase currently proposes to construct a new bridge structure at IH 35 that will allow for the Southeast Inner Loop frontage roads to be constructed under IH 35 and then a bridge structure will be constructed from the new IH 35 bridge structure through the Snead Drive/Blue Springs Boulevard Intersection. These improvements are proposed to tie into Ultimate Phase of SH 29 Bypass Project at its ultimate terminus point with IH 35. This proposed phase is not currently projected Page 7 to be constructed within the 2035 time frame; however the updated traffic analysis modeled the ultimate intersection at IH 35 for both scenarios. (See Figure 4: SE Inner Loop – Ultimate Phase) Fig. 5: SE Inner Loop - Ultimate Phase The Phase II/Ultimate Phases for the Southeast Inner Loop Project, Phase SH 29 Bypass Project from SH 29 to IH 35 and Sam Houston Boulevard Project are all interconnected as far as future expansions are concerned. These projects and their ultimate build outs are tied together as they will ultimately provide an alternate west-east route from SH 29 to HWY 130. Timing for each will have to be evaluated based off traffic counts to determine that the existing facilities are reaching their capacity. An evaluation will also have to be made to determine phasing for this entire corridor and funding sources for each project. Coordination and planning will be critical for this phase between TxDOT, Williamson County and the City. Page 8 5.0 Public Involvement Process All potentially affected property owners were mailed notices requesting to meet to review the proposed alignment and impact to their property. Of the thirteen (11) different property owners, KPA and City Staff received responses from and met with nine (9) potentially impacted property owners. During these meetings, we reviewed the scope of the project and the exhibits for each phase. Many of the property owners understood the purpose behind the project and provided positive feedback for the most part. Most of the discussions were centered on timing of the project and property access. We requested each property owner to send us their comments and/or suggestions in writing so that they can be incorporated into this report. We received one response from Georgetown Railroad Company, Inc. and it can be found in Appendix C. Page 9 6.0 Traffic Modeling Analysis A technical memo that documents the traffic analysis results for the proposed reconstruction of Southeast/Southwest Inner Loop or the SH 29 Bypass. This roadway will provide significant regional access to IH 35, SH 29, SH 130 and other regional roadways. The analysis and discussions contained in this report focus on the projected daily traffic volumes and operating conditions of the corridor for the years 2035 and 2075. This is a summary of the data that was summarized for the traffic model analysis. The complete analysis can be seen in Appendix D. The 2035 Travel Demand Model utilized the 2035 traffic projections based off the demographic projections that have approved by both the City of Georgetown and Capital Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO). These demographics were used in the completion of the CAMPO Regional 2035 Plan and are based on Georgetown’s Future Land Use Plan. For this analysis year, the following roadway improvement assumptions were made: • Southwest Inner Loop Main Lanes (29 Bypass) between DB Wood to SH 29; • Southwest Inner Loop Main Lanes (29 Bypass) and Frontage Roads between SH 29 and RM 2243 (Leander Road); • Southwest Inner Loop Main Lanes (29 Bypass) and Frontage Roads between SH 29 and IH 35; • SW/SE Inner Loop and IH 35 Interchange and all direct connections; • SE Inner Loop Main Lanes and Frontage Road between IH 35 and Maple Street; • Reconfigured Maple Street/Inner Loop Intersection; • Sam Houston Avenue Main Lanes and Frontage Roads (where planned) between Maple Street and SH 130. The modeling analysis indicates that the traffic volumes on the SW/SE Inner Loop Main Lanes at the IH 35 Interchange for the 2035 analysis year are projected to be 36,000 vpd and 34,500 vpd in each direction (east & west bound). The 2035 projected 24-hour daily traffic volumes for selected roadway sections can are shown in Table 1 below. Page 10 Page 11 Because of the anticipated traffic volumes it is recommended that the SW/SE Inner Loop Main Lanes at the IH 35 Interchange be constructed as a freeway cross section with a total of six (6) lanes (3 in each direction). In addition to the main lane construction, the frontage roads should be reconstructed to three (3) lanes in each direction at grade to allow for local access to adjacent properties. Page 12 7.0 Multi-Use Trail Facility A proposed Multi-Use Trail Facility was developed for the proposed project that will extend from the intersection of Rockride Lane (CR 110) to IH 35. The trail facility is proposed to be a twelve (12) foot concrete sidewalk that will combine pedestrians and bicycles. Pedestrian ramps are included at roadway intersections with crosswalks and are compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Texas Department of Licensure and Regulations (TDLR) and the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). Page 13 8.0 Roadway Design Considerations 8.1 Design Standards – Typical Sections The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) book entitled “A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Street” provides the following definitions. • Operating Speed: the highest overall speed at which a driver can travel on a given highway under favorable weather conditions and under prevailing traffic conditions without at any time exceeding the safe speed as determined by the design speed on a section-by-section basis. • Design Speed: the maximum safe speed that can be maintained over a specified section of highway when conditions are so favorable that the design features of the highway govern. AASHTO’s recommended design speed for a roadway is based on the 85th percentile speed. For new roadways where 85th percentile speed is not yet available or for reconstructed roadways where the characteristics of the new roadway are likely to alter the 85th percentile speed, engineering judgment is needed to establish the 85th percentile speed. Selecting the design speed should be a logical choice decision based on topography, anticipated adjacent land uses, roadway category and anticipated pedestrian/bicycle levels. The proposed roadway horizontal centerline alignment meets a design speed of 75 miles per hour for Phase I & Phase II. Due to the proposed ultimate intersection alignment at IH 35, the design speed in this section was reduced to 60 mph. The typical cross section for Phase I is shown below. Fig. 6: Typical Roadway Cross Section Page 14 The following table provides a summary of several roadway design criteria. A Twelve (12) foot trail is included. The minimum horizontal curve radius for a 70 mph design speed as specified by TxDOT Roadway Design Manual is 3,390 feet with a maximum super elevation rate (emax) of 6%. Therefore, the minimum horizontal curve radius that is recommended for design is 3,390 feet. The preliminary schematic layout meets the horizontal curve criteria. Table 1: Design Criteria – Phase I & II Table 1: Design Criteria Design Speed 75 mph Posted Speed 60 mph to 65 mph Lane Widths 12 feet Travel Lanes 4 (2 each way) Shoulder Width 8 to 10 feet Grass Median Width (Ph. I) Varies Cross Slope .02 ft./ft. Multi-Use Trail Facility 12 ft. concrete ROW Width Varies Min. Horizontal Curve 4,575 ft. Table 2: Design Criteria – Ultimate Phase Table 1: Design Criteria Design Speed 60 mph to 75 mph Posted Speed 50 mph to 65 mph Lane Widths 12 feet Travel Lanes 4 (2 each way) Shoulder Width 8 to 10 feet Grass Median Width (Ph. I) Varies Cross Slope .02 ft./ft. Multi-Use Trail Facility 12 ft. concrete ROW Width Varies Min. Horizontal Curve 4,575 ft. Roadway Cross Sections were created at 100-foot intervals and are located in the 30% Design Set. Page 15 8.2 Design Standards – Intersection Layouts There are four (4) intersections that have been laid out for Phase I construction and incorporated into the 30% Plan Sets. These proposed layouts of these intersections – IH 35 Frontage Roads, Snead Drive/Blue Springs Road, FM 1460 and Maple Street/Sam Houston Boulevard, are included below in Figures 6 thru Figure 9. Fig. 7: IH 35 Frontage Road & SE Inner Loop Intersection Page 16 Fig. 8: Snead Dr/Blue Springs Blvd & SE Inner Loop Intersection Fig. 9: FM 1460 & SE Inner Loop Intersection Page 17 Fig. 10: Maple Street/Sam Houston Blvd & SE Inner Loop Intersection 8.3 Drainage 8.3.1 Drainage Area Development Preliminary maps were developed for the proposed project’s watershed using two-foot interval contours. The overall drainage area consisted generally of the land from Southeast Inner Loop (project extents) southward to Westinghouse Road. The total contributing areas for the proposed drainage collections system is approximately 2,145 acres. Using the contours, eleven (11) subbasins were delineated based on perceived drainage flow patterns. These basins consist of multiple land uses including open field, moderate density residential, commercial, and industrial. There are no bridge structures in the drainage area. Multiple culverts and drainage crossings along Southeast Inner Loop were analyzed and redesigned to conform to the proper drainage criteria determined from the following hydrologic and hydraulic analysis. KPA incorporated the current Smith Branch Drainage Model prepared by KPA in 2013. 8.3.2 Hydrologic Methodology The SCS Method and HEC-HMS hydrologic modeling system were utilized for modeling peak design flow rates for storm water runoff. The lag times for each subbasin were first determined using the SCS Method. To do this, the hydraulic length and slope of the watershed were calculated using the drainage maps and contours. A SCS curve number (CN) was then determined for each individual subbasin using the surface cover, hydrologic conditions, and soil types. Once the CN was calculated, the maximum retention (S) in the watershed could Page 18 be determined. All of this information was then used to calculate the SCS lag times. This was done for both the existing and fully developed conditions. Once lag times were determined, the U.S. Army Corp of Engineering Center’s Hydrologic Modeling System (HEC-HMS) was utilized to determine the peak discharge for the 2, 10, 25 and 100-year frequency storms. These respectively correlate to the 50%, 10%, 4% and 1% chance storms in a given year. These values again were determined for both the existing conditions as well as fully developed conditions in the project’s drainage subbasins. 8.3.3 Hydraulic Analysis The FEMA-approved CulvertMaster program was utilized to analyze the existing culverts along the Southeast Inner Loop and redesign them when needed. The discharge rates for the 100-year storm under fully developed conditions were used to attempt to maximize the drainage efficiency of the structures. First, the existing structures were measured for size, length, and slope and were analyzed for the storm water discharge requirements. As a result of this analysis, one (1) of the eight (8) drainage structure areas analyzed calculated to be sufficient for the required discharge. The remaining seven (7) drainage locations were then redesigned to meet the requirements and were incorporated into the 30% plan sets. 8.3.4 Flood Plain The flood zone for the project site is identified as Zone “AE” for Smith Branch and Zone “A” for an Unnamed Tributary per Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map Number 48491C0485E dated September 26, 2008. 8.3.5 Miscellaneous Extended detention is proposed for this roadway work, however, each new development parcel in the drainage area should be evaluated for on-site detention on a case by case basis. 8.4 Utility Utility locations information was obtained from the City of Georgetown GIS database and onsite investigations. 8.4.1 Existing water lines are: • 16” WL located on the north side of Southeast Inner Loop from IH 35 Frontage Road to Snead Drive/Blue Springs Boulevard; • 18” WL located on the south side of Southeast Inner Loop from Snead Drive/Blue Springs Boulevard to Maple Street; • 12” WL located on the north side of Southeast Inner Loop from Maple Street to approximately 2,500 LF to the east. Page 19 8.4.2 Proposed water line relocations: The majority of the existing water line along the proposed route for Phase I & II are located in areas where the horizontal alignment will be located outside the construction area. There can be potential vertical conflicts at drainage locations, but these can be remedied easily. There are anticipated conflicts with the existing 18” WL at Southeast Inner Loop and Maple Street. There will be a need to perform minor modifications to the horizontal alignment in this area. 8.4.3 Existing wastewater lines are: • 21” WWL located parallel to the current northern right-of-way of Southeast Inner Loop from Maple Street to Smith Branch. 8.4.4 Proposed wastewater line relocations: The majority of the existing wastewater line along the proposed route for is located under the proposed alignment of the Phase II improvements (main lanes). This relocation will be from Maple Street to its terminus at Smith Branch. The wastewater line can remain in place for Phase I, if preferred. However, it will be required to be relocated with the main lanes of Southeast Inner Loop is constructed (Phase II). We would recommend to relocate the wastewater line as part of Phase I, should the funds be available, to have all utilities clear for future project expansions. 8.4.5 Dry Utility Conflicts: Electric, gas, telephone cable utilities are located throughout this corridor. The majority of the electric transmission/distribution lines are located on the north side of the existing Southeast Inner Loop rights-of-way line. The section of electric lines from Snead Drive/Blue Springs Boulevard to Sam Houston Boulevard would need to be relocated due to the construction of the east bound frontage road. The southern Southeast Inner Loop right of way currently contains a high pressure gas line and several underground fiber optic and telephone cables. The proposed alignments for Phase I & II do not require any major relocation of these lines. There will be some portions of the lines that maybe required to be lowered during construction should there be a conflict with any proposed drainage structures. There will be relocations required of these lines for the ultimate phase. The exact limits of this relocation will be determined as part of the final design for the ultimate phase. Affected existing water, sewer, gas, electric, telephone and cable transmission, distribution and service lines to properties that are acquired for rights-of-way will be removed or relocated accordingly. 8.5 Soil Conditions/Pavement Design A soils and testing analysis should be performed by a competent geotechnical engineering firm during the final design phase to explore soil types and substrate that can be encountered during construction and to recommend a 20-year pavement design. Undisturbed areas within the project site appear to be gently sloping grass land. No significant rock outcrops in the project area are noticeable from surrounding viewpoints along existing roadways. For the purposes of cost estimating, the following pavement sections were used: Page 20 Proposed Southeast Inner Loop Pavement Section: • 2-inch Type C, Hot Mix Asphalt Concrete (HMAC) Overlay • 4-inch Type B, HMAC Overlay • 22.5-inch Crushed Limestone Base Material • TX 5 Geogrid • 6-inch Moisture Conditioned Subgrade The above pavement section is consistent with the recently completed Sam Houston Boulevard (Southeast Arterial 1) project that is located adjacent to this project. This section was used for cost estimating purposes only. A complete geotechnical soils sampling, testing and analysis is required. A geotechnical report with recommended pavement design should be conducted during the project final design phase. 8.6 Major Structures Existing topographic and anticipated roadway street slopes are generally less than 5% gradient, therefore no constructed walls are anticipated for roadway embankments for Phase I of this report. Phase II will consist of roadway embankment and a bridge structure located over FM 1460. The proposed rights-of-width at FM 1460 Intersection is set to construct the proposed bridge structure utilizing roadway embankment in lieu of retaining wall structures. The rights-of-way in this area can be narrowed should it be determined that it is more cost effective to construct the retaining walls in lieu of purchasing the additional rights-of-way. The Ultimate Phase of this project will consist of a proposed bridge structure over IH 35 that will connect Southeast Inner Loop to the SH 29 Southwest Bypass project. Currently Phase I & II are anticipated to be constructed by 2035. There is currently no projection for when the Ultimate Phase will be constructed. Page 21 9.0 Rights-of-Way Requirements 9.1 Rights-of-Way Acquisition The majority of proposed rights-of-way for Phase I & II would currently be required from primarily undeveloped properties containing open spaced pasture areas. However, due to the location of existing Rivery Boulevard intersection at Williams Drive and existing residential development, impacts to existing residential structures are unavoidable and inevitable in order to extend Rivery Boulevard to Northwest Boulevard. Rights-of-way and property acquisition costs are significant and account for approximately half of the anticipated total project expense. Where parcels appeared to be minimally impacted by proposed rights-of-way acquisition, it was assumed that public easements or similar rights-of-way easement could be acquired rather than purchasing the entire parcel. It was assumed that purchasing the property would be necessary where the proposed roadway construction (including sidewalks) appeared to cross the footprint or rooftop of existing structures. More detailed rights-of-way maps based on the ground land surveying will be provided during the design phase. The original alignment of the ultimate phase resulted in approximately twenty-four (24) impacted properties that were owned by ten (10) different property owners. The modified ultimate alignment increased the overall property count to twenty-seven (27) properties to be potentially impacted by the alignment that are owned by thirteen (11) different owners. The three largest property owners along this route are Longhorn Junction Land and Cattle Company that own ten (10) tracts, Georgetown Railroad Co, Inc. own five (5) tracts and Williamson County own three (3) tracts. This information was obtained from the Williamson County Appraisal District (WCAD). (See Figure 11 ROW Exhibit) Figure 11: ROW Exhibit Page 22 9.2 Access Management Controlling access points along freeway/arterial type roadways is desirable in order to facilitate uniform traffic flow and maximize travel time efficiency. Driveway spacing should meet the Texas Department of Transposition Access Driveway Standards. The location of future driveways should be reviewed for approval by city staff during the site plan review process. Page 23 10.0 Environmental Impacts – Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone The majority of the project is located within the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone and therefore require a water pollution abatement plan. A temporary solution typically includes an erosion and sedimentation control plan. An E&S control plan restrains sediment pollution during construction. Any identification of aquifer recharge “sensitive features” during construction requires immediate notification to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). For long term aquifer pollution protection, an extended detention water quality pond would be proposed to be constructed on the north side of Southeast Inner Loop, near its intersection with Smith Branch. For the purposes of this report, a portion of the offsite drainage area was included in the sizing of the anticipated extended detention water quality pond. The contractor will be typically responsible for: • Preparing and sending the Notice of Intent and Notice of Termination to TCEQ within required timeframe of commencing construction. • Receiving approval confirmation of Notice of Intent from TCEQ. • Implementation of the approved plan. • Maintaining, documenting and reporting as required by TCEQ. The appropriate TCEQ regional office location and contact information is: Austin Regional Office 2800 S. IH35, Suite 100 Austin, Texas 78704 (512) 339-2929 A final summary of the environmental report will be finalized once an ultimate alignment is approved. An amendment to the report will submitted to City Staff that will inlcude the final environmental summary and report. Page 24 11.0 Conclusion This preliminary engineering report (PER) consisted of preparing a schematic design and analysis of the Southeast Inner Loop between IH 35 and Rockride Lane (CR 110). As discussed in the report the project is proposed to be developed into three (3) phases. Phase I and Phase II is proposed to be constructed by 2035 as determined by the Traffic Modeling Analysis. The proposed ultimate phase of the project will need to be coordinated with the final phases of the SH 29 Bypass Project, IH 35 Construction, and Sam Houston Boulevard. The proposed length of the project is approximately 17,600 linear feet (approximately 3.3 miles). The preliminary Opinion of Probable Project Costs for Phase I is $18,800,000. It is important to note that rights-of-way cost will be determined as part of final negotiations with the impacted property owners. Appendix A: Phase I Preliminary Opinion of Probable Cost Number Bid Quantity Unit Item Description Unit Price Extended Price 1 100%LS Insurance, Bonds and Move-In Related Expenses not to exceed 5% of Total Bid 650,000.00 650,000.00 2 176 STA Preparation of Right-of-Way 750.00 132,000.00 3 110,800 SY 2-inch Type “C” HMAC 4.00 443,200.00 4 110,800 SY 4-inch Type “B” HMAC 8.00 886,400.00 5 122,500 SY TX 5 Geogrid 3.50 428,750.00 6 122,500 SY 12.5-inches Crushed Limestone Base Material 12.00 1,470,000.00 7 122,500 SY 10.5-inches Crushed Limestone Base Material 11.00 1,347,500.00 8 122,500 SY 6-inch Moisture Conditioned Sub-Grade 1.50 183,750.00 9 1,800 SY 6-inch Concrete Channel including 18-inch Toe Ditches 50.00 90,000.00 10 17,600 LF Furnish, Install, Maintain & Remove Silt Fence 3.50 61,600.00 11 750 LF Furnish, Install, Maintain & Remove, Rock Berm 35.00 26,250.00 12 100%LS Prepare Notice of Intent to Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) 3,000.00 3,000.00 13 100%LS Prepare Notice of Termination to TCEQ 3,000.00 3,000.00 14 8 EA Stabilized Construction Entrance 2,500.00 20,000.00 15 15,000 LF 5-Strand Barbed Wire Fence 10.00 150,000.00 16 6 EA Galvanized Tube Access Gate (16-foot) 1,500.00 9,000.00 17 35 EA Intermediate Brace Post for Barbed Wire Fence 250.00 8,750.00 18 80 EA Barbed Wire Fence Corner Brace Post 250.00 20,000.00 19 275,000 CY Unclassified Excavation 4.00 1,100,000.00 20 275,000 CY Fill Material 4.00 1,100,000.00 21 1000 CY 18-inch Deep Rock Rip Rap Averaging 12-inche Diameter Rock 50.00 50,000.00 22 500 SY Concrete Driveway 55.00 27,500.00 23 750 SY Asphalt Driveway 40.00 30,000.00 24 750 SY Gravel Driveway 35.00 26,250.00 25 180 LF 13-8’ x 4’ Reinforced Concrete Box Culvert 6,500.00 1,170,000.00 26 4 EA Concrete Flared Wingwall (Skewed) for 13-8’ x 4’ RCB, Including Concrete Apron 22,500.00 90,000.00 27 84 LF 2-6’ x 6’ Reinforced Concrete Box Culvert 1,000.00 84,000.00 28 2 EA Concrete Wingwall with Flared Wings for 2-6’ x 6’ RCB, Including Concrete Apron 3,500.00 7,000.00 29 30 LF 4-24-inch Class III RCP 175.00 5,250.00 30 2 EA Concrete Headwall with Flared Wings for 4-24-inch RCP, Including Concrete Apron 4,500.00 9,000.00 31 90 LF 5-7’ x 4’ Reinforced Concrete Box Culvert 1,400.00 126,000.00 32 2 EA Concrete Headwall with Flared Wings (Skewed) for 5-7’ x 4’ RCB, Including Concrete Apron 12,500.00 25,000.00 33 180 LF 6-48-inch Class III RCP 1,250.00 225,000.00 34 4 EA Concrete Wingwall with Flared Wings (Skewed) for 6-48-inch RCP, Including Concrete Apron 9,500.00 38,000.00 35 140 LF 5-48-inch Class III RCP 1,100.00 154,000.00 36 2 EA Concrete Wingwall with Flared Wings (Skewed) for 5-48-inch RCP, Including Concrete Apron 8,500.00 17,000.00 37 60 LF 6-36-inch Class III RCP 900.00 54,000.00 38 2 EA Concrete Wingwall with Flared Wings for 6-36-inch RCP, Including Concrete Aprons 8,000.00 16,000.00 39 110 LF 3-10’ x 6’ Reinforced Concrete Box Culvert 2,000.00 220,000.00 40 2 EA Concrete Wingwall with Flared Wings for 3-10’ x 6’ RCB, Including Concrete Apron 7,500.00 15,000.00 41 1 EA Skewed Parallel Concrete Wingwall for 3-6’ x 3’ RCB 3,000.00 3,000.00 42 450 SY 6-inch Concrete Rip Rap, Including 18-inch Toe Ditch all Around 50.00 22,500.00 43 95 LF 4’ x 3’ Reinforced Concrete Box Culvert 350.00 33,250.00 44 2 EA Concrete Wingwall with Flared Wings for 4’ x 3’ RCB, Including Concrete Apron 2,500.00 5,000.00 45 100 LF 2-24-inch Class III RCP 150.00 15,000.00 46 2 EA Concrete Wingwall with Flared Wings for 2-24-inch RCP, Including Concrete Aprons 1,200.00 2,400.00 47 48 LF 3-30-inch Class IV RCP 350.00 16,800.00 48 1 EA Concrete Wingwall with Flared Wings for 3-30-inch RCP, Including Concrete Apron 2,500.00 2,500.00 49 250,000 SY Hydromulching, Including topsoil and Watering to Sustain Growth 0.75 187,500.00 50 100%LS Maintenance of R-O-W, Including Final Mowing Prior to Project Final Payment 20,000.00 20,000.00 51 35,000 SY Erosion Control Blankets 3.00 105,000.00 52 500 CY Miscellaneous Class A Concrete 500.00 250,000.00 53 12,200 LF 4-inch Continuous Double Yellow Striping 3.50 42,700.00 54 46,000 LF 4-inch Continuous Solid White Striping 1.75 80,500.00 55 15,000 LF 4-inch Continuous Yellow Striping 1.75 26,250.00 56 500 EA Type 11-A-A Traffic Buttons 25.00 12,500.00 SOUTHEAST INNER LOOP SCHEMATIC DESIGN IH 35 TO ROCKRIDE LANE (CR 110) OPINION OF PROBABLE PROJECT COST Number Bid Quantity Unit Item Description Unit Price Extended Price SOUTHEAST INNER LOOP SCHEMATIC DESIGN IH 35 TO ROCKRIDE LANE (CR 110) OPINION OF PROBABLE PROJECT COST 57 7,500 LF 4-inch Dashed Yellow Striping 1.75 13,125.00 58 500 LF 24-inch Stop Bar 25.00 12,500.00 59 100%LS Traffic Signage 25,000.00 25,000.00 60 1,500 LF Metal Beam Guard Fence, Including Terminal Anchor Sections, & Concrete Mow Strip 200.00 300,000.00 61 100%LS Provide Pre-Construction DVD of Project Limits 3,000.00 3,000.00 62 100%LS Provide Post –Construction DVD of Project Limits 3,000.00 3,000.00 63 100%LS Provide Trench Safety Plan Signed & Sealed by a Licensed Professional Engineer in the State of Texas 5,000.00 5,000.00 64 1,400 LF Implementation of Trench Safety Plan (Pipe) 2.00 2,800.00 65 100%LS Provide All Material, Equipment, Tools & Labor Necessary to Test Waterline, Including Any Repairs 5,000.00 5,000.00 66 4,800 LF Relocate 18-inch Wastewater Line 175.00 840,000.00 67 100%LS Water Line Adjustments 25,000.00 25,000.00 12,581,525.00$ 1,258,152.50 CONSTRUCTION TOTAL TO USE 13,839,677.50$ ROW ACQUISTION (35 Acres @ $75,000/Acre)2,625,000.00$ DRY UTILITY RELOCATIONS 250,000.00$ PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (Final Engineering Design, Geotech, etc.)2,075,951.63$ TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST 18,790,629.13$ TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST - USE 18,800,000.00$ CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL: CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCIES: Appendix B: Southeast Inner Loop Modeling Analysis To: Trae Sutton, P.E., CFM From: Rebecca A. Bray, P.E., PTOE, AICP Date: September 2, 2014 Subject: Southeast Inner Loop Modeling Analysis Executive Summary This technical memo documents the Southwest/Southeast Inner Loop planned, the new SW/SE Inner Loop will connect DB Wood (western terminus) to Ma Maple Street, SE Inner Loop continues on as As ultimately envisioned this new roadway will provide and traveling to/from both Georgetown and Willi access to IH 35, SH 29, SH 130 and other The data presented herein include the ultimate alignment and cross-sections for SW/SE contained in this report focus on of the corridor for the years 2035 and 2075 To determine the corridor operating conditions, the current (TDM) was obtained. The TDM was refined to include the SW/SE Inner Loop corridor. The scenarios. The edits include the comp FM 1460, re-alignment of SE Inner Loop to connect to Maple Street, and the Sam Houston Avenue mainlanes and frontage roads. Based upon the TDM analysis results because of the regional nature of will provide, SW/SE Inner Loop should be fully constructed frontage roads. Both the projecte lane freeway cross-section. The subsequent sections of this memo will address the 2075 traffic projections, and a discussion of the results. TECHNICAL Memorandum Rebecca A. Bray, P.E., PTOE, AICP Southeast Inner Loop Modeling Analysis xecutive Summary documents the traffic analysis that has been completed for the reconstruction of Southeast Inner Loop (SW/SE Inner Loop) or the SH 29 southern by- SE Inner Loop will connect DB Wood (western terminus) to Ma SE Inner Loop continues on as Sam Houston Avenue and terminate As ultimately envisioned this new roadway will provide regional connectivity for the residents in both Georgetown and Williamson County. It will provide significant regional IH 35, SH 29, SH 130 and other regional roadways. include the Travel Demand Modeling results obtained sections for SW/SE Inner Loop. The analysis and discussions contained in this report focus on the projected daily traffic volumes and traffic operating conditions for the years 2035 and 2075 To determine the corridor operating conditions, the current 2035 Georgetown Travel Demand Model The TDM was refined to include the planned roadway projects The refined TDM was used as the basis for each of the scenarios. The edits include the completion of: SW/SE Inner Loop mainlanes and frontage roads, alignment of SE Inner Loop to connect to Maple Street, and the Sam Houston Avenue Based upon the TDM analysis results for both of the projected analysis years, it is anticipated that of the proposed SW/SE Inner Loop and the access and connectivity it will provide, SW/SE Inner Loop should be fully constructed as a freeway section frontage roads. Both the projected year 2035 and 2075 volumes warrant the need for the ultimate 6 subsequent sections of this memo will address: development of the 2035 TDM the 2075 traffic projections, and a discussion of the results. All figures are attached in Memorandum that has been completed for the reconstruction of -pass. As currently SE Inner Loop will connect DB Wood (western terminus) to Maple Street. At Sam Houston Avenue and terminates east of SH 130. regional connectivity for the residents in provide significant regional results obtained using both the The analysis and discussions traffic operating conditions orgetown Travel Demand Model projects within the basis for each of the projected year letion of: SW/SE Inner Loop mainlanes and frontage roads, alignment of SE Inner Loop to connect to Maple Street, and the Sam Houston Avenue ears, it is anticipated that SW/SE Inner Loop and the access and connectivity it freeway section with at-grade d year 2035 and 2075 volumes warrant the need for the ultimate 6- TDM, development of All figures are attached in Appendix A. Southeast Inner Loop Modeling Analysis 2 Introduction This memo will present the traffic volume information for the proposed reconstruction of Southwest/Southeast Inner Loop (SW/SE Inner Loop) between DB Wood and Maple Street and then its continuation as Sam Houston Avenue to east of SH 130. The purpose of this report is twofold: (1) Use the 2035 Travel Demand Model (TDM) to determine the projected traffic demand; and (2) Determine the projected 2075 traffic demand using straight line regression with both a sustainable and conservative growth rate. The proposed SW/SE inner Loop will be an access controlled freeway consisting of mainlanes and frontage roads through most of its entirety. As ultimately planned, SW/SE Inner Loop is part of the SH 29 southern by-pass and will provide both regional and local connectivity. Thus, providing congestion relief for many of the local roads that are currently used for regional cut-through traffic. Planned Roadway Projects This study was initiated partly by the large number of roadway projects currently under design or being planned within the study area as well as the potential for a significant amount of development in the future. Once completed, these roadways will not only allow for better regional connectivity, but will allow for more development opportunities with the City of Georgetown as well as the region. Each of the roadway improvements discussed below have been included in the 2035 TDM. For discussion purposes the portions of Inner Loop west and east of IH 35 have been separated SW Inner Loop – SW Inner Loop is a newly proposed freeway cross-section that will serve as a connection between the rapidly developing western portions of Georgetown and Williamson County. It will ultimately serve as a connection from DB Wood to IH 35 with grade separated structures at RM 2243, over the San Gabriel river and SH 29. As planned there will be access controlled freeway mainlanes and accompanying frontage roads. SE Inner Loop – SE Inner Loop is planned to connect from Austin Avenue/IH 35 to Maple Street at which point SE Inner Loop will tie directly into Sam Houston Avenue. The section between Austin Avenue/IH 35 and Maple Street (SE Inner Loop) will be reconstructed with both access controlled freeway mainlanes and frontage roads. The section of Inner Loop between Maple Street and SH 29 will remain in place but realigned to intersect with Maple Street. SW/SE Inner Loop and IH 35 Interchange – As ultimately planned there will be a full interchange at this intersection along with all direct connections. IH 35 will remain as an elevated section and the SW/SE Inner Loop mainlanes will be on a bridge structure over the IH 35 mainlanes. Both the IH 35 frontage roads and the SW/SE Inner Loop frontage roads will remain at grade and will intersect. Southeast Inner Loop Modeling Analysis 3 FM 1460 – FM 1460 is currently under final design and it will be reconstructed as a four-lane divided principal arterial. In the vicinity of the SE Inner Loop Frontage Road intersections, driveway cuts and full access intersections will be limited. Sam Houston Avenue – Sam Houston Avenue will ultimately be constructed with both freeway mainlanes and frontage roads (where planned) and will continue to east of SH 130. Model Development For this study, the current 2035 Georgetown Travel Demand Model (TDM) was used to determine the 24-hour daily traffic volumes on the roadway network within the study area. As part of a previous study the zonal structure and demographics were reviewed. However, the population and employment characteristics for 2035 had previously been adopted by both CAMPO and the City of Georgetown; therefore, no changes were made to the demographic information. The only model changes were to the roadways as previously discussed. Model Results The primary focus of this study was to refine the existing TDM with the planned roadway network and determine the projected 24-hour daily traffic volumes utilizing the defined sub-area network. The second part of this study was to project 24-hour daily traffic volumes into the year 2075. Because no new demographic information is available nor have changes been adopted, a straight line regression calculation was used in the determination of the 2075 traffic volumes. 2035 Travel Demand Model Results The analysis used in the determination of the 2035 traffic projections utilized the demographic projections that have been approved by both the City of Georgetown and the Capital Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO). These demographics where used in the completion of the CAMPO regional 2035 plan and are based on Georgetown’s future land use plan. For this analysis year it was assumed that the following roadway improvements were in place: • SW Inner Loop mainlanes between DB Wood to SH 29; • SW Inner Loop mainlanes and Frontage Roads (where planned) between SH 29 and RM 2243; • SW Inner Loop mainlanes and Frontage Roads between SH 29 and IH 35; • SW/SE Inner Loop and IH 35 interchange and all direct connections; • SE Inner Loop mainlanes and frontage roads between IH 35 and Maple Street; • Reconfigured Maple Street and Inner Loop intersection; and • Sam Houston Avenue mainlanes and Frontage Roads (where planned) between Maple Street and SH 130. The projected 24-hour daily traffic volumes for selected roadway sections between RM 2243 and FM 1460 are shown in Table 1 and the projected traffic volumes for the entire corridor are shown on Figure 1. Southeast Inner Loop Modeling Analysis 4 Table 1: 2035 Projected Traffic Volumes Roadway Section Location Description Direction Project 24-Hour Traffic Volumes Southwest Inner Loop Mainlanes West of IH 35 West of the direct connectors Eastbound 41,400 Westbound 38,600 East of the direct connectors Eastbound 34,500 Westbound 36,000 Southwest Inner Loop Frontage Road West of IH 35 Just West of IH 35 Eastbound 3,400 Just West of IH 35 Westbound 2,300 Southeast Inner Loop Mainlanes East of IH 35 West of the direct connectors Eastbound 34,500 Westbound 36,000 East of the direct connectors Eastbound 46,000 Westbound 42,000 Southwest Inner Loop Frontage Road East of IH 35 Just East of IH 35 Eastbound 5,900 East of Austin Avenue Westbound 18,100 Northbound IH 35 to Eastbound SE Inner Loop Direct Connection 8,700 Northbound IH 35 to Westbound SW Inner Loop Direct Connection 3,700 Southbound IH 35 to Eastbound SE Inner Loop Direct Connection 1,200 Southbound IH 35 to Westbound SW Inner Loop Direct Connection 500 Westbound SW Inner Loop to Northbound IH 35 Direction Connection 1,100 Westbound SW Inner Loop to Southbound IH 35 Direction Connection 6,500 Eastbound SW Inner Loop to Northbound IH 35 Direction Connection 500 Eastbound SW Inner Loop to Southbound IH 35 Direction Connection 5,300 Southeast Inner Loop Modeling Analysis 5 2075 Traffic Projections In order to calculate the 2075 traffic projections the 2035 traffic projections were used as the base line and then both a sustainable (1%) and a conservative (2%) Annual Growth Rate (AGR) were applied in a straight line calculation. The conservative rate of 2% was chosen based on CAMPO policy as well as general planning principles. Generally, CAMPO uses a 2% annual growth rate whenever modeling updates are completed. While Georgetown as well as many other Central Texas municipalities have experienced unprecedented growth and development since 2000, this may not be manageable between 2014 and 2075. Because of this, a more sustainable growth rate of 1% was chosen for comparison purposes. As with the 2035 analysis scenario, it was assumed that the same roadway improvements were in place. The projected 24-hour daily traffic volumes for selected roadway sections between RM 2243 and FM 1460 are shown in Table 2 and the projected traffic volumes for the entire corridor are shown on Figure 2. SW/SE Inner Loop mainlanes at the IH 35 interchange: eastbound 56,400 vpd and 88,000 vpd westbound 54,000 vpd and 84,100 vpd SW Inner Loop Frontage roads west of IH 35 eastbound 5,400 and 8,400 vpd westbound 3,600 vpd and 5,600 vpd SW Inner Loop Frontage roads east of IH 35 eastbound 9,200 and 14,300 vpd westbound 28,300 vpd and 44,100 vpd Southeast Inner Loop Modeling Analysis 6 Table 2: 2075 Projected Traffic Volumes Roadway Section Location Description Direction Project 24-Hour Traffic Volumes 1 % AGR 2 % AGR Southwest Inner Loop Mainlanes West of IH 35 West of the direct connectors Eastbound 65,400 102,000 Westbound 60,400 94,200 East of the direct connectors Eastbound 56,400 88,000 Westbound 54,000 84,100 Southwest Inner Loop Frontage Road West of IH 35 Just West of IH 35 Eastbound 5,400 8,400 Just West of IH 35 Westbound 3,600 5,600 Southeast Inner Loop Mainlanes East of IH 35 West of the direct connectors Eastbound 56,400 88,000 Westbound 54,000 84,100 East of the direct connectors Eastbound 72,000 112,200 Westbound 65,800 102,500 Southwest Inner Loop Frontage Road East of IH 35 Just East of IH 35 Eastbound 9,200 14,300 East of Austin Avenue Westbound 28,300 44,100 Northbound IH 35 to Eastbound SE Inner Loop Direct Connection 13,700 21,000 Northbound IH 35 to Westbound SW Inner Loop Direct Connection 5,700 8,900 Southbound IH 35 to Eastbound SE Inner Loop Direct Connection 1,900 3,000 Southbound IH 35 to Westbound SW Inner Loop Direct Connection 800 1,300 Westbound SW Inner Loop to Northbound IH 35 Direction Connection 1,600 2,600 Westbound SW Inner Loop to Southbound IH 35 Direction Connection 10,200 15,900 Eastbound SW Inner Loop to Northbound IH 35 Direction Connection 800 1,200 Eastbound SW Inner Loop to Southbound IH 35 Direction Connection 8,200 12,900 Southeast Inner Loop Modeling Analysis 7 Conclusions and Recommendations This technical memo documents the traffic analysis that has been completed for the reconstruction of Southwest/Southeast Inner Loop (SW/SE Inner Loop) or the SH 29 southern by-pass. The purpose of this study is two-fold: use the 2035 TDM to determine the projected network-wide traffic volumes given the ultimate roadway network improvements and second, to determine the SW/SE Inner Loop geometric requirements in the vicinity of the IH 35 interchange. As ultimately envisioned this new roadway will provide regional connectivity for the residents in and traveling to/from both Georgetown and Williamson County. It will provide significant regional access to IH 35, SH 29, SH 130 and other regional roadways. Modeling Results The modeling analysis indicates that the traffic volumes on the SW/SE Inner Loop mainlanes at the IH 35 interchange during the analysis year 2035 are projected to be 36,000 vehicles per day (vpd) and 34,500 vpd in each the eastbound and westbound directions. At this same location the projections for the frontage roads to the west of IH 35 are 3,500 vpd (eastbound) and 2,300 vpd (westbound) and to the east of IH 35 the projections are 5,900 vpd (eastbound) and 18,100 vpd (westbound). During the 2075 analysis year, the modeling projections increase significantly irrespective of the average annual growth rate: 1% or 2%. The analysis results using both rates during this year are listed below: SW/SE Inner Loop mainlanes at the IH 35 interchange eastbound 56,400 vpd and 88,000 vpd westbound 54,000 vpd and 84,100 vpd SW Inner Loop Frontage roads west of IH 35 eastbound 5,400 and 8,400 vpd westbound 3,600 vpd and 5,600 vpd SW Inner Loop Frontage roads east of IH 35 eastbound 9,200 and 14,300 vpd westbound 28,300 vpd and 44,100 vpd Because of the anticipated traffic volumes – both 2035 and 2075 – it is recommended that the SW/SE Inner Loop mainlanes at the IH 35 interchange be ultimately constructed as a freeway cross- section with a total of six lanes (3 in each direction). In addition to the mainlane construction, the frontage roads should be reconstructed with 3 lanes each direction and in order to allow for greater local access, these should remain at grade. Southeast Inner Loop Modeling Analysis 8 APPENDIX: REPORT FIGURES M A T C H L IN E A - A M A T C H L IN E A - A MAINLANE LEGEND FRONTAGE RD/RAMPS IH 35 Brown & Gay Engineers, Inc. »¿Houston Austin Dallas Fort Worth TBPE Registration No. F-1046 CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS RAMPS SH 29 MAPLEAUSTIN AVERM 2243 FM 1460 SNEAD BLUE SPRINGS 600700 500 500 OF1 3 SW/SE INNER LOOP SH29 TO MAPLE STREET FIGURE 18,300 20,000 16,600 18,600 25,200 28,500 23,000 47,200 41,800 38,600 5,200 3,600 6,500 1,200 1,000 18,100 34,500 36,100 8,700 5,900 9,200 46,000 42,000 6,700 4,600 5,900 5,100 10,500 23,600 21,700 40,100 36,900 9,300 22,400 22,000 5,400 4,800 5,700 3,600 800 5,700 40,900 29,800 13,200 25,300 18,500 13,700 30,100 14,300 13,700 15,600 19,600 32,200 39,600 11,000 2,100 4,600 3,400 FIGURE 1: 2035 PROJECTED DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES 6,400 3,400 7,200 5,000 6,300 40,500 $ F IL E $ $ D A T E $ $ T IM E $ $ P L T D R V S $ 12,000 18,700 16,500 14,500 M A T C H L IN E A - A M A T C H L IN E A - A MAINLANE LEGEND FRONTAGE RD/RAMPS IH 35 Brown & Gay Engineers, Inc. »¿Houston Austin Dallas Fort Worth TBPE Registration No. F-1046 CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS RAMPS SH 29 MAPLEAUSTIN AVERM 2243 FM 1460 SNEAD BLUE SPRINGS 600700 800 800 OF2 3 SW/SE INNER LOOP SH29 TO MAPLE STREET FIGURE 28,700 31,300 26,000 29,100 39,500 44,700 36,000 73,900 65,500 60,400 8,300 5,600 10,200 1,900 1,600 28,300 54,000 56,400 13,700 9,200 14,500 72,000 65,800 10,500 7,100 9,300 8,100 16,400 36,900 33,900 9,800 14,500 35,000 34,500 5,400 4,800 5,600 5,700 46,700 26,600 39,600 29,000 21,500 47,000 22,400 21,500 24,500 30,700 50,500 62,000 17,100 3,300 7,300 5,300 FIGURE 2: 2075 PROJECTED DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES (1% AGR) 26,000 31,300 26,000 9,900 5,400 62,700 57,700 1,200 63,900 63,300 8,900 62,700 57,700 11,000 7,800 9 / 2 / 2 0 14 V : \ 0 2 P r o p o s a ls \ C it y _ G e o r g e t o w n \ G T D A T A \ F IG U R E 2 . d g n 9 : 16 : 3 5 A M p d f . p lt c f g M A T C H L IN E A - A M A T C H L IN E A - A MAINLANE LEGEND FRONTAGE RD/RAMPS IH 35 Brown & Gay Engineers, Inc. »¿Houston Austin Dallas Fort Worth TBPE Registration No. F-1046 CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS RAMPS SH 29 MAPLEAUSTIN AVERM 2243 FM 1460 SNEAD BLUE SPRINGS 600700 OF3 3 SW/SE INNER LOOP SH29 TO MAPLE STREET FIGURE 44,700 49,100 45,300 61,400 69,600 56,100 94,400 12,800 8,900 15,800 2,900 2,600 44,100 84,200 88,000 21,300 22,600 16,400 14,400 12,600 25,600 57,500 52,800 97,800 90,000 22,600 54,600 53,700 13,100 11,700 8,700 14,000 99,700 73,000 32,200 62,000 45,200 33,500 74,000 34,900 33,500 38,000 47,800 78,700 96,900 26,700 5,200 11,300 8,300 FIGURE 3: 2075 PROJECTED DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES (2% AGR) 40,700 15,500 102,100 115,100 8,200 1,300 1,300 102,600 112,200 17,100 29,000 1,900 13,900 98,700 12,200 $ P L T D R V S $ $ T IM E $ $ D A T E $ $ F IL E $ Appendix C: Property Owner Written Response List of References City of Georgetown, TX. January 12, 2004. Drainage Criteria Manual; 1st Edition, Version Two. City of Georgetown, TX. 2004. Overall Transportation Plan (OTC). Texas Department of Transportation. May 2010. Roadway Design Manual. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials . 1984. “A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Street” Appendix D: Project Exhibits ‹ 20 1 3 K a s b e r g , P a t r i c k & A s s o c i a t e s , L P K P A F i r m R e g i s t r a t i o n N u m b e r F - 5 1 0 FI L E : P: \ G e o r g e t o w n \ 2 0 1 2 \ 2 0 1 2 - 1 2 7 S E I n n e r L o o p \ C A D \ e x h i b i t s \ S E I N N E R L O O P C O R R I D O R S T U D Y E X H I B I T - t y p i c a l s e c t i o n s 2 0 1 4 - 0 3 - 0 6 . d w g L A S T S A V E D : 3/ 6 / 2 0 1 4 9 : 4 5 : 2 2 A M LA Y O U T : TY P I C A L S E C T I O N S 1 O F 2 P l o t D a t e : 3/ 6 / 2 0 1 4 1 0 : 0 9 : 5 1 A M P l o t t e d B y : SI L I F F GEORGETOWN, TEXAS 78628 SOUTHEAST INNER LOOP CORRIDOR STUDY FROM IH 35 TO ROCKRIDE LANE (CR110) TYPICAL SECTIONS © 20 1 3 Ka s b e r g , P a t r i c k & A s s o c i a t e s , L P K P A F i r m R e g i s t r a t i o n N u m b e r F - 5 1 0 FI L E : P: \ G e o r g e t o w n \ 2 0 1 2 \ 2 0 1 2 - 1 2 7 S E I n n e r L o o p \ C A D \ e x h i b i t s \ S E I N N E R L O O P C O R R I D O R S T U D Y E X H I B I T - P H 0 1 I N T E R S E C T I O N S 2 0 1 4 - 0 3 - 1 3 . d w g LA S T S A V E D : 3/ 1 3 / 2 0 1 4 1 0 : 5 4 : 5 6 P M LA Y O U T : EX H I B I T A - 2 P H A S E 1 D E S I G N 1 1 x 1 7 Pl o t D a t e : 8/ 1 2 / 2 0 1 3 2 : 3 2 : 1 0 P M Pl o t t e d B y : SI L I F F KASBERG, PATRICK & ASSOCIATES, LP CONSULTING ENGINEERS GEORGETOWN, TEXAS 78628 SOUTHEAST INNER LOOP CORRIDOR STUDY FROM IH 35 TO ROCKRIDE LANE (CR110) EXHIBIT A-2 PHASE I INTERSECTION AT S.E. INNER LOOP AND AUSTIN AVE. This document is released for the purpose of interim review under the authority of Alvin R. Sutton P.E. 96530 on March 13, 2014 It is not to be used for construction, bidding or permit purposes. TEXAS GEORGETOWN PROPOSED 12' TRAIL 1'SHOULDER VARIES 12' TRAVEL LANE 12' TRAVEL LANE 12' TRAVEL LANE 12' TRAVEL LANE SHOULDER VARIES 1'VARIES FILTER STRIP VARIES FILTER STRIP 2% - 20% SLOPE VARIES BY CROSS SECTION 2% - 20% SLOPE VARIES BY CROSS SECTION 2% SLOPE 2% SLOPE 48' 3:1SLOP E C U T 3:1 SLOPE C U T DEPTH VARIES 3:1 SLOPE C U T 3:1SLOP E C U T DEPTH VARIES TYPE "C" H.M.A.C. TYPE "B" H.M.A.C. TX5 GEOGRID AT MID-DEPTH OF THE BASE MATERIAL MOISTURE CONDITIONED SUB GRADE CRUSHED LIMESTONE BASE MATERIAL CRUSHED LIMESTONE BASE MATERIAL TYPICAL SECTION - 4 LANES UNDIVIDED LEG 01 (SE INNER LOOP) NOT TO SCALE VARIES R.O.W. VARIES 12' TRAIL S.E. I N N E R L O O P AU S T I N A V E (S P U R 2 6 ) I. H . 3 5 F R O N T A G E R O A D 0 HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET 20 40 N O R T H ONLY ON L Y ON L Y © 20 1 3 Ka s b e r g , P a t r i c k & A s s o c i a t e s , L P K P A F i r m R e g i s t r a t i o n N u m b e r F - 5 1 0 FI L E : P: \ G e o r g e t o w n \ 2 0 1 2 \ 2 0 1 2 - 1 2 7 S E I n n e r L o o p \ C A D \ e x h i b i t s \ S E I N N E R L O O P C O R R I D O R S T U D Y E X H I B I T - P H 0 1 I N T E R S E C T I O N S 2 0 1 4 - 0 3 - 1 3 . d w g LA S T S A V E D : 3/ 1 3 / 2 0 1 4 1 0 : 5 4 : 5 6 P M LA Y O U T : EX H I B I T A - 3 P H A S E 1 D E S I G N 1 1 x 1 7 Pl o t D a t e : 8/ 1 2 / 2 0 1 3 2 : 3 2 : 1 0 P M Pl o t t e d B y : SI L I F F KASBERG, PATRICK & ASSOCIATES, LP CONSULTING ENGINEERS GEORGETOWN, TEXAS 78628 SOUTHEAST INNER LOOP CORRIDOR STUDY FROM IH 35 TO ROCKRIDE LANE (CR110) EXHIBIT A-3 PHASE I INTERSECTION AT S.E. INNER LOOP AND C.R. 115 This document is released for the purpose of interim review under the authority of Alvin R. Sutton P.E. 96530 on March 13, 2014 It is not to be used for construction, bidding or permit purposes. TEXAS GEORGETOWN PROPOSED 12' TRAIL 1'SHOULDER VARIES 12' TRAVEL LANE 12' TRAVEL LANE 12' TRAVEL LANE 12' TRAVEL LANE SHOULDER VARIES 1'VARIES FILTER STRIP VARIES FILTER STRIP 2% - 20% SLOPE VARIES BY CROSS SECTION 2% - 20% SLOPE VARIES BY CROSS SECTION 2% SLOPE 2% SLOPE 48' 3:1SLOP E C U T 3:1 SLOPE C U T DEPTH VARIES 3:1 SLOPE C U T 3:1SLOP E C U T DEPTH VARIES TYPE "C" H.M.A.C. TYPE "B" H.M.A.C. TX5 GEOGRID AT MID-DEPTH OF THE BASE MATERIAL MOISTURE CONDITIONED SUB GRADE CRUSHED LIMESTONE BASE MATERIAL CRUSHED LIMESTONE BASE MATERIAL TYPICAL SECTION - 4 LANES UNDIVIDED LEG 01 (SE INNER LOOP) NOT TO SCALE VARIES R.O.W. VARIES 12' TRAIL S.E. INNER LOO P B L U E S P R I N G S B L V D . S N E A D D R . 0 HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET 25 50 N O R T H SE INN E R L O O P ONLY ONLY ONLY © 20 1 3 Ka s b e r g , P a t r i c k & A s s o c i a t e s , L P K P A F i r m R e g i s t r a t i o n N u m b e r F - 5 1 0 FI L E : P: \ G e o r g e t o w n \ 2 0 1 2 \ 2 0 1 2 - 1 2 7 S E I n n e r L o o p \ C A D \ e x h i b i t s \ S E I N N E R L O O P C O R R I D O R S T U D Y E X H I B I T - P H 0 1 I N T E R S E C T I O N S 2 0 1 4 - 0 3 - 1 3 . d w g LA S T S A V E D : 3/ 1 3 / 2 0 1 4 1 0 : 5 4 : 5 6 P M LA Y O U T : EX H I B I T A - 4 P H A S E 1 D E S I G N 1 1 x 1 7 Pl o t D a t e : 8/ 1 2 / 2 0 1 3 2 : 3 2 : 1 0 P M Pl o t t e d B y : SI L I F F KASBERG, PATRICK & ASSOCIATES, LP CONSULTING ENGINEERS GEORGETOWN, TEXAS 78628 SOUTHEAST INNER LOOP CORRIDOR STUDY FROM IH 35 TO ROCKRIDE LANE (CR110) EXHIBIT A-4 PHASE I INTERSECTION AT S.E. INNER LOOP AND F.M. 1460 This document is released for the purpose of interim review under the authority of Alvin R. Sutton P.E. 96530 on March 13, 2014 It is not to be used for construction, bidding or permit purposes. TEXAS GEORGETOWN PROPOSED 12' TRAIL 1' 10' SHOULDER12' TRAVEL LANE10' SHOULDER 1'VARIES FILTER STRIP 5' MINIMUM 2% SLOPE2% SLOPE 44' 3:1SLOP E F I L L 3:1 SLO P E C U T DEPTH VARIES TYPE "C" H.M.A.C. TYPE "B" H.M.A.C. TX5 GEOGRID AT MID-DEPTH OF THE BASE MATERIAL MOISTURE CONDITIONED SUB GRADE CRUSHED LIMESTONE BASE MATERIAL CRUSHED LIMESTONE BASE MATERIAL VARIES TYPICAL SECTION - 4 LANES DIVIDED LEGS 01 & 02 (SE INNER LOOP) NOT TO SCALE 12' TRAVEL LANE 1' 10' SHOULDER 12' TRAVEL LANE 10' SHOULDER 1' 5' MINIMUM 2% SLOPE 2% SLOPE 44' 3:1 SLOPE F I L L TYPE "C" H.M.A.C. TYPE "B" H.M.A.C. TX5 GEOGRID AT MID-DEPTH OF THE BASE MATERIAL MOISTURE CONDITIONED SUB GRADE CRUSHED LIMESTONE BASE MATERIAL CRUSHED LIMESTONE BASE MATERIAL 12' TRAVEL LANE 2% - 20% SLOPE VARIES BY CROSS SECTION VARIES FILTER STRIP 2% - 20% SLOPE VARIES BY CROSS SECTION 3: 1 SL O P E C U T 3: 1 S L O P E C U T DEPTH VARIES 3:1 SLO P E C U T R.O.W. VARIES 12' TRAIL S.E. INN E R L O O P F . M . 1 4 6 0 0 HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET 50 100 N O R T H © 20 1 3 Ka s b e r g , P a t r i c k & A s s o c i a t e s , L P K P A F i r m R e g i s t r a t i o n N u m b e r F - 5 1 0 FI L E : P: \ G e o r g e t o w n \ 2 0 1 2 \ 2 0 1 2 - 1 2 7 S E I n n e r L o o p \ C A D \ e x h i b i t s \ S E I N N E R L O O P C O R R I D O R S T U D Y E X H I B I T - P H 0 1 I N T E R S E C T I O N S 2 0 1 4 - 0 3 - 1 3 . d w g LA S T S A V E D : 3/ 1 3 / 2 0 1 4 1 0 : 5 4 : 5 6 P M LA Y O U T : EX H I B I T A - 5 P H A S E 1 D E S I G N 1 1 x 1 7 Pl o t D a t e : 8/ 1 2 / 2 0 1 3 2 : 3 2 : 1 0 P M Pl o t t e d B y : SI L I F F KASBERG, PATRICK & ASSOCIATES, LP CONSULTING ENGINEERS GEORGETOWN, TEXAS 78628 SOUTHEAST INNER LOOP CORRIDOR STUDY FROM IH 35 TO ROCKRIDE LANE (CR110) EXHIBIT A-5 PHASE I INTERSECTION AT S.E. INNER LOOP/SAM HOUSTON BLVD. AND MAPLE ST. This document is released for the purpose of interim review under the authority of Alvin R. Sutton P.E. 96530 on March 13, 2014 It is not to be used for construction, bidding or permit purposes. TEXAS GEORGETOWN PROPOSED 12' TRAIL PROPOSED 12' TRAIL 1'SHOULDER VARIES 12' TRAVEL LANE 12' TRAVEL LANE 12' TRAVEL LANE 12' TRAVEL LANE SHOULDER VARIES 1'VARIES FILTER STRIP VARIES FILTER STRIP 2% - 20% SLOPE VARIES BY CROSS SECTION 2% - 20% SLOPE VARIES BY CROSS SECTION 2% SLOPE 2% SLOPE 48' 3:1SLOP E C U T 3:1 SLOPE C U T DEPTH VARIES 3:1 SLOPE C U T 3:1SLOP E C U T DEPTH VARIES TYPE "C" H.M.A.C. TYPE "B" H.M.A.C. TX5 GEOGRID AT MID-DEPTH OF THE BASE MATERIAL MOISTURE CONDITIONED SUB GRADE CRUSHED LIMESTONE BASE MATERIAL CRUSHED LIMESTONE BASE MATERIAL TYPICAL SECTION - 4 LANES UNDIVIDED LEG 01 (SE INNER LOOP) NOT TO SCALE VARIES R.O.W. VARIES 12' TRAIL S.E. INN E R L O O P M A P L E S T SAM HOUSTON BLVD S.E. I N N E R L O O P 0 HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET 100 200 N O R T H