Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 2018-01-22 Agendas M RH NOKTH RICHLAND HILLS CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION AGENDA 4301 CITY POINT DRIVE NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TX 76180 MONDAY, JANUARY 22, 2018 JOINT WORKSESSION OF CITY COUNCIL AND STRATEGIC PLAN COMMITTEE WORK SESSION: 4:00 PM Held in the Community Room (1st Floor) 1. Call to Order 2. Introductions - Clayton Comstock, NRH Planning Manager 3. Overview and discussion of the Transportation Plan process and major tasks lead by Transportation Plan consultants Freese & Nichols, Inc., including the following topics: 3.A. Transportation Plan Goals 3.B. Travel Demand Modeling 3.C. Roadway Rightsizing 3.D. Target Corridor Planning 3.E. Trail System Integration 3.F. Transit Oriented Development (TOD) 3.G. Design Standards 4. Small Group Discussion: City Council and the Committee will separate into four (4) smaller groups. Small group discussion will be facilitated by Transportation Plan consultants Freese & Nichols, Inc., will continue to be held in the Community Room, and will cover the following topics: Monday, January 22, 2018 City Council Worksession Agenda Page 1 of 3 4.A. Strengths and Opportunities of Transportation in North Richland Hills 4.B. Issues and Needs of Transportation in North Richland Hills 4.C. Transportation Goals 5. Overview and discussion of speciality topics, including: 5.A. Active Transportation - Toole Design Group 5.B. Safe Routes to Schools - UTA Institute for Urban Studies 5.C. Transit Oriented Development (TOD) - Toole Design Group and Freese & Nichols, Inc. 5.D. Target Corridor Planning - Freese & Nichols, Inc. 6. Small Group Discussion. City Council and the Committee will separate into four (4) smaller groups. Small group discussion will be facilitated by Transportation Plan consultants Freese & Nichols, Inc., will continue to be held in the Community Room, and will cover the following topics: 6.A. Active Transportation 6.B. Safe Routes to Schools 6.C. TOD Integration 6.D. Target Corridors 7. Overview of small group discussions, Transportation Plan schedule and next steps - Freese & Nichols, Inc. 8. Adjournment Certification I do hereby certify that the above notice of meeting of the North Richland Hills City Council was posted at City Hall, City of North Richland Hills, Tex compliance with Chapter 551, Texas Government Code on Friday, 19, 2018 by 3:00 p.m. a r City Secretary Monday, January 22, 2018 City Council Worksession Agenda Page 2 of 3 This facility is wheelchair accessible and accessible parking spaces are available. Requests for accommodations or interpretive services must be made 48 hours prior to this meeting. Please contact the City Secretary's office at 817-427-6060 for further information. Monday, January 22, 2018 City Council Worksession Agenda Page 3 of 3 MRH CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM FROM: The Office of the City DATE: January 22, 2018 Manager SUBJECT: Transportation Plan Input Workshop PRESENTERS: Clayton Comstock, Planning Manager Eddie Haas, Freese & Nichols, Inc. Addie Weber, Toole Design Group Institute of Urban Studies, University of Texas at Arlington GENERAL DESCRIPTION: City Council will hold their first Joint Work Session with the Strategic Plan Committee on Monday, January 22 at 4:OOPM in the City Hall Community Room to discuss transportation-related topics for the 2018 North Richland Hills Transportation Plan. The consultant team from Freese & Nichols, Inc. has put together the attached background/summary sheets to help Council and the Committee prepare for the meeting. Online surveying will occur after the meeting to allow the general public to express their thoughts on NRH's transportation system as well. Data collected from the 2017 Citizen Survey will also be used by the consultants as they prepare the Transportation Plan. This workshop, however, is the only planned input-gathering meeting for the Transportation Plan element of the Strategic Plan. Once the meeting begins at 4:OOPM, representatives from the Freese & Nichols consultant team will lead Council and the Committee through large group and small group discussions about transportation goals, a SWOT analysis of the community's transportation system, and responses to certain topics such as active transportation, transit-oriented development, context-sensitive roadway design, future traffic modeling and forecasting, and other topics. North Richland Hills Transportation Plan III III IIIII�IIII III��II III��II III III��II luuiiiii III III�III a IIII III III�IIII VIII III IIIIIIIII III IIII�II 1111111 udlll� III III 1111111 II�III�III IIIII�I�1111111�1 II III III�III liiiiii�i III�IIII�IIII IIIII�IIII III IIIII�III III IIIII�II III VIII MEETING DATE, TIME, & LOCATION: January 22, 2018, 4:00 - 6:00 PM City Hall Community Room The Input Workshop's purpose is to define the existing state of the transportation system in NRH through issues, needs, strengths, and opportunities identification, and to define what you feel success �� looks like for transportation in the local context of NRH. rfmSD�6 Your role is to use your experience and insights into the intricate ��" �'' day-today details of transportation in NRH to help guide the UY„ I 'rrrrrrrrr' // 4 Transportation Plan. Your role is also to be a voice for your community and speak to the goals and desires of an effective transportation system for the future. By familiarizing yourself with the materials within prior to the meeting, you will be able to come prepared to provide feedback to the planning team on the range of topics to be discussed. M11« S P1 '1)/, ul 1. Meeting Agenda Additional Resources 2. Biographies of Planning Team Existing 3. Overview of Planning Process Thoroughfare Plan 4. Draft Transportation Goals 2016 Trail and1� stem 5. Active Transportation Primer Route Sy 6. Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Plan Primer Your Knowledge! 7. Target Corridor Maps • Do the Draft Goals encompass a transportation vision for NRH to strive toward? • What are the transportation-related strengths and opportunities in NRH? • What are the transportation-related issues and needs in NRH? • What walking- and cycling-specific issues are there in NRH? • What types of walk/bike facilities best fit NRH? • What connections are needed to enhance access to the TOD stations? • What issues, concerns, and context are you aware of for each target corridor? P4 FtH = . North Richland Hills Transportation Plan iiiiiliiiii�i li ii iiu�iii iiilll DATE &TIME: LOCATION: January 22, 2018, 4:00 to 6:00 PM City Hall Commu7Room General Overview (All Group) Team Introductions Integration with Ongoing Strategic Plan Efforts Review of Transportation Plan Process & Major Tasks Goals, Travel Demand Modeling, Rightsizing, Target Corridor Planning, Trail System Integration, Transit-Oriented Development, Design Standards General Input (Small Group Discussion) ISSISES Discussion of Transportation Goals C�ly� NEEDS Discussion on Strengths & Opportunities Discussion on Issues & Needs Specialty Topics Introduction (All Group) Active Transportation Overview & Strategies Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Strategies Safe Routes to Schools (UTA Institute of Urban Studies) Target Corridor Planning Introduction Specialty Topics Input (Small Group Discussion) O O Discuss Transportation Connections Active Transportation * TOD Integration Discuss Target Corridors Wrap Up Summary (All Group) Summary of Input Heard Schedule and Next Steps Question & Answer Session HRH . u III III IIIII�II III��III III��III II III��III Iliiiii� III IIIIIIIIII IIIIII�III III��IIII�III IIIIIIII III IIIII� liiiiii� III IIIIII�III II III�II III�IIIIIII� VIII North Richland Hills Transportation Plan IIII':' IIII':):IICI11E IIIFIIIIAA asjax:t Mau"oala�er ................................................................................................................................................................................................... Edmund (Eddie) Haas specializes in the development of comprehensive urban and transportation plans, and assisting in the municipal development of long-term traffic and land use solutions. He also is experienced in the development of policy-oriented land use plans, demographic analyses, multimodal transportation systems, corridor plans, and parking and impact fee systems. Relevant Experience: Fort Worth Thoroughfare Plan Update (as subconsultant); Transportation Plans: Garland, Irving, Cedar Hill, Schertz, Weatherford, Waxahachie, Greenville, Rockwall. County Transportation Plans: Kaufman, Denton, Cooke, Parker. ( .11f'vium s iir JAf"f l,fllf; aR„aa�yma,llSIDII"III I'al"CY�ec4 a'rk lrlla',�0.°.�ell, land n St. Jacques is an experienced engineer with diverse resume including sportation and mobility regional planning, bicycle and pedestrian system planning esign traffic engineering, roadway design and construction management. He is a member e ker's Bureau for the National Complete Streets Coalition. vant Experience: Weatherford Transportation Plan; Texas High Speed Rail; Cresson oughfare and Future Land Use Plan; Denton Bicycle Plan; Midlothian Comprehensive Plan — portation Component (as subconsultant). AII ':IIIC Ilfi IIL..... III III VIII illlll lllll ':IICf;Im iuaannslpaartaaplrmi II cad........................................................................................................................................................................................................... Daniel Herrig is a transportation engineer and planner focusing on long-range transportation planning service for public sector clients. He has experience in roadway design projects, bond programs, impact fees, corridor management, thoroughfare planning, and planning and environmental linkage (PEL) studies. He also has experience in cost estimating, economic benefit analysis, and data collection and analysis. Relevant Experience: Schertz Thoroughfare Plan; Weatherford Transportation Plan; Norman Comprehensive Transportation Plan. IIJIIII'.J]ICIIIII'i,!! WEINER ActIve 11 aal it spo iaru lio in/i rainst Oin i ota d Il anr®a llcsp7nci t ......... .. ......... ......... ......................................................................... Addie Weber is an urban designer and planner with extensive experience collaborating with multidisciplinary teams on numerous livable transportation projects. She has worked with a wide range of clients to develop community supported, context-sensitive design solutions for suburban and urban environments. She has worked on over 70 station area plans. Relevant Experience: Atlanta BeltLine, Charlotte's Light Rail Transit Extension, Denver's Commuter Rail Line, ULI National Advisory Services Panel Largo Town Center TOD. North Richland Hills Transportation Plan III III IIIII�III IIII��IIII IIII�III III IIII�III luiiiiiiiii III II IIIIIIIII IIIIIII� IIIIII�I VIII VIII Existing Conditions Data collection, stakeholder input, and identification of �► issues and needs w � Traffic Modeling ° Use locally tailored demographics and road network inputs to inform run of NCTCOG travel ,• demand model for future g g 0 roadwa utilization Corridor Ri hts¢m � Using model output to identify underutilized 06 roadways for reallocation of ROW space •. ` Target Corridor Planning Detailed evaluation of specific roadway issues using a comprehensive approach to improve fit Trail Integration '• a between design, user Integrate built trail system needs and local context into local network as well as recommend and verify feasibility of additional 1 7 linkages to promote .. connectivity between �` TOD Integration neighborhoods, rail stops, and Integration of TOD into business centers. ,p local network to ensure I access and circulation, rp r including multimodal options, in the future Design Standards development of the areas Develop design standards �ti L' and typologies based on neighborhood context and multimodal options Doci on & Ap Dplanning pd analysis inevelopment of impion measures P4 RH a..n „ �>� W� � � � IIWIIIIIII�III�Ir 1IlIIII1I��IIIIIIII W IIryI� »»�iII,JI.�, , i o' (f.o„. !il I Ildv�i�r ,1 VIII r r JwJ I�Illl vik�/"d 'Vid 11111111! ::I III �.IuW,l�ll�f In 111 1 ,V I III 1 e If ( 1 I _d l 1 D11»ltll,t /J„ JJJft ..IIII a✓, IIII I !»» 6 � J, I /G ,( I IYI J,« 1 f toll l Ii)l tl r(trlmull IIIJ�II f, fil l l�„I ��I�:l II / 1 ,J11,11b 1r1 i � ImiIl�Ylt 111/1 � l >( 1 rl ! 1 IIII I I m II I III» l ll y I Ir 1 L r, f pllff++II 1 , ( I , , II I V I I I�i III IU a1 t, � I � Illla am V 1 I ill I I ( I I I r _ 1 1 l I I r � I I I 1 1 I I1 I r 1 1 1 I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I t I I I I I .r III l I I I I I f Ills �lrl I II r � >I ul: 1 1 II Illlli� I� l i III I II I I I r � �1 I I 1 � I a ILI111))111111 ,1111I11J11 I r l r, 11 r I � r I �Il J Illl»�11�1 � II 11 1 1 11,1to111.11111�1 illlr, I�ia,llrll� , ,,: 116:��,(bIIII�iYJ1J„ li>U� �/ttul���U,�ll /1' / uYliullu u�iu � � 1111»,fr,r1(r�1+,Y 110»lil 1 IJ r r I Y I 1- I 1 rr JJ J�I�I I ul»»IVr,! Ill!lilN u(UIIIUIlu1Yu lurrid I I I I Y11 I1i111I1 11 I II ( I 11 l 1 1 I I �. ,. III f � muurf 1 u Ilr I 1 1 1 I111111II �111I11� III , VIIII 11 I � I irrlll f I I II rl . 1 1,1 � L��Ii��JIDi� 1(���Il�il�>I I 1 r Iill�l�1 �J ,I , rlllli� III�III i1 . mulP I 111 r I ,U I � 1 V s»"'r-�, IhVmlVll111J»>�IIIbaJ1u1U» !,»(G�IJ�IIIII I �1 ,' I I IIIIJJ III I � VIIIIdlllllll/1 � J.I 1 111 I, !I ,1� ..� � �r r lltu�Vl�1111 Y1111f rrl 1 � l II i Il 1�ItJ, 111/ I Il 1 11 I J I r I 1 i I � 1 111 North Richland Hills Transportation Plan IIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIU IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII«I��III��IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiIII�IIIICIIf IIIIIIIII�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiffffffllllllllllllllllllllllllllll�ll IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII«r((i(flllllllllllllll(IIIIINIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIif�If IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII1r«f��l(IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIYIIIIIIIYf1��lllllllllllll 1111111 In evolving the Thoroughfare Plan into the Transportation Plan, we strive to: EXPAND MOBILITY AND ACCESS BY .. . 111-orncrtuu nap uu ute°,u°c c»u uu ue{tle°,a:t Iruc a tll ullalaal"l urcaaar a, I'e»r All II uanlr»c1es of Il i aave lll. nlc thrN , road«mays, i O sid wafllks lift a " oc comprehensive fr7 P�l all forms of to ana7taortatpaaln Il.xylrao"n g u!78uag new technologies to enhance Yranspnorta'V'fon aapaV'ions Il�valu:!atln€t specific existing and planned roadway i;:anuldoi' V for fu lhir ^ g:u°auu"Yllrrcrl°tlaaVaiC:'allll Irur r'rct&, (Developing policies and sltalndaurds for off-street a,onnectivl9'.ya dead-eruct ^,sects, aalind new € ul-(.e-wac'.5. ENHANCE QUALITY OF LIFE BY ® r� rac a!smq on movm g people saleV y and i lficGi ntly. nooacureu€ mg traalecapol-tahon rfeaaog;tue standards ruppop rialYe Yo the L ® neighhrarhood context. Complying with sltallte and local ua llii, quahty standards:: IMPROVE ECONOMIC VITALITY BY • (Improving access to employment, c"rsnulrlairY"€ar;':., aclu!c°ahon, and _€amr urfity resources, 4 • IlProvl in€t for the atrircju"ru'nt movement of goods and services a;gthening the � ite graatlon if: hansportation and land use tit.o"c.i',.. t row.t'in€t and rma ntzdninct Inflrarcstructu re capacity in line wlthi (growth oir deae.11uu"ur dlleiinards,, » Ilelaar"nu'ni ng for 'Transit Onente d Deva=6cagament: (Tt71ID) FOCUS ON IMPLEMENTATION BY ® Q© 6 iararc 1n,aguuoat IIt7r'.»all aauocll i eg< »our<all 111111 baltllaru.a to Ilevc uaige Roca 111 tlraauur»Ippor aaboinu rtesllllaau'., p� VVIIat,Praadlin;V sbrereLs aalnet Illrualn,poirtaaLlo n finfraasbuac.tual ea in ollrte 1, aall"acct v� substandard aai c.„'oa&, * IPtlaaliu"o'Itaallunlllung th"uc'a a,llr"aau"ulluu"ucss aaunit good relpaalilr of exuraltlling t.ua!nu'anll oiiLaat.uc;:au"u liunituaasbiue;tuau fa. M%1 k/0, t, Dry rc JIS9AvY.r,�. N� w NWYM�e�frt4WPW9VtiNa 1 �/�' 1 1 1 1 i .t ;?,,i�,.ii� ., (iii/i r, /i// 'ffff �Nfllllll♦�IIU M . What are some of the benefits? w Illlo�� � ��IIIIIII w IIIIIIII IIII iN�l�, Y�Y��1��IJ�Jib1i>1i1r'i)yU� IHEALTH COMMUNITY ECONOMY >) HAPPIUMIESS ��� IYIYI�)�1I�I�I1"1�����'Ill'II� � � •• ����� ��I���I���UWf'lJ1���I���Wif� �' ,mr m � � � �. �u W �w�JO)9))I��������� ����J�����UI,�� ��U �)IJIIJ�ri�/1��I1�lU1�U11�1��L/J1�1��J1�111P,�¢ilf1������ ll��� I�IIIIIIII Mllill�ll �1�1��I�ftl11J1/1�1 1f������1�grlll 11D11G1lIJ;U�IIwi��it�l�JiylGllllll minutes 150per ll�9�1�'b'+i�ffi ��V11DIID��P1Jl�IJV11 ''�(�' �� V1�411J1JV1�I1111D1JJ�J!�1J11�1�11(141fJ';h�01��1D� week �11��IUY�I�P"IIG�IJ�)11>ti�f���rll��l°II)U111U11�G1P,P'I� o "'�` � �V1P1�iL�J�y1�lUPi�1�r1!'�, . � • � ��f„ r � J�� �;,� ���� �� (�fllliflf���l � IJI��j � �����II IIIIIIIIIIII�IIIII�IIIIIIItIIIIIIIII�IIIII fIIIIII(III IIIIII��II���������� IIIIou�IIfII�hIIIIiIIIIIIIIIIIIIIfi�(fl«iII�IUdIII�u�IIIfI�ul�lll�lllll�����ll ��� « ,��r,��f",�r I11111111111Jllllllllllllllllllllllllllll �°�1 1 11111111r111111>ll��lllllllall� r Bicyclh w'o�*1ts ✓A I ° iIIIIIIIV �IIIIIIIIII mu' w i � i ��u „ IIIIIIIIII u . II 0 Wmwft hil Ww ' report i p u 1 satisfaction f with their commute than 5i i) 1I�$ people who drive to work. per Mimi than m m m rowl,row onil pwo,tarwreµm a a �� mw Ifiu a x ®^ m rm mr r r" r m ^ 1 ^ m s r �� f MpiJra�y uY ^ i North Richland Hills Transportation Plan �ffrr��Offfffffh ii, �Il�fff(f�M What are some of the benefits? III I I� J IIII IIII�I�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII i II II f Expanded mobility choices that reduce dependence on the automobile,reduce s transportation costs and tree up a household income for other purposes ° North Richland Hills Transportation Plan 111111111111MMEC2121M W I Il"? W IL'(F' III'xIl fC I" The detailed evaluation of localized roadway 1. To provide solutions specific t7unique needs for specific target corridors using corridor issues a comprehensive approach to consider 2. To improve the fit between design, user all users and the local context. needs, and physical context ©vim 3. To increase the opportunities for greater numbers of people to benefit from future investments in the corridor 3 d^ Des 0>��o sw�`�� 97d d� 4. To provide deeper information that can 0f s N9 Ls inform decision-making and allocation of �F~d _ rn� �d �°� future resources to allow more effective $ d� use of funds 0" o s 05 ON s. ._ Stamen Rd % CORRIDORS FOR EVALUATI Iron Horse Blvd (Rufe Snow Mid-Cities) � ��. Hightoyvgr_Dr Meadow Rd (Chapman — Hightower) �` < ® 1 ;i ; I °"m Amundson (Main — Precinct Line) Chapman Rd T D Eden (Amundson — Rumfeld) Hightower (Smithfield — Davis) °. +lid-Cities&ud° Hightower (Michael — Eden) i ALSO r 1 CONSIDERATION FOR Holiday Ln Loo g ®, Y ( P 20 — Liberty) ► Meadow Lakes (Loop 820 — Rufe Snow) g � 4 ✓' Bedford-Euless Rd (SH 26 — Strummer) �� ..._ � m Veada.Lake l �VP 'h , � �d L G/'Tw•r�/dry rwii fq FtH . North Richland Hills Transportation Plan 111111111111MMEC2121MIEM MEADOW ROAD CONTEXT Large-lot residential/"rural preservation" �r v Existing 2 lane roadway, ultimate 4-lane* � ISSUES TO BE SOLVED v °i�' �I�i uur+ ° �� uIIIIIIIIIIV ' ;VI� i needed sizing? walk/bike be incorporated in a street section? ry A / Ol i.: r • • i li r A Iv i 1'i A CONTEXT Previously planned for industrial *Ultimate section refers to current thoroughfare Changed to planned residential &office plan designation of roadway lanes at build-out. ISSUES TO BE SOLVED How can corridor adapt to new context? HRH . North Richland Hills Transportation Plan 111111111111MMEM121M -EDEN . . *Ultimate section refers to current thoroughfare CONTEXT plan designation of roadway lanes at build out. Large-lot residential Existing 2-lane roadway, ultimate 4-lane* , ISSUES TO BE SOLVED urr�r;x�r� iru, What is the needed sizing? r' i n.l r r, ora^nr�tEr rer � �„ � I±erg rtr �r r� r ii Wy I p I W�fl r I ilk ;- �,I fl�i� ��;d� � � • ' � ,-�»9 r �W r>Jii/ I • • r,. t z IGHTOWER %; CONTEXT CONTEXT Adjacent to railroad Existing 2-lane roadway, ultimate 4-lane* r ® � Residential context, no existing roadway ;a Planned to increase circulation & access � ISSUES TO BE SOLVED ISSUES TO BE SOLVED What is the needed sizing? Would a modified section be appropriate What is the needed sizing and timing? in the context? k4FtH . North Richland Hills Transportation Plan 111111111111MMEC2121M HOLIDAY IIIIIII�IIIIIIIIIUI�IIIIUU��II�I»1�I�1���1��1111;11�1i111���1�1����j��1��jIII��l�Il1111�I��III�������,II,I���IU�U����I� �� CONTEXT Heavy hpeak traffic u�l�glllCl�l,�llldl ��rIP,�,Jli�flllll� IIU��UlfU1a» r, fllli 110>(IUI�IIi�IrI��II�IUII�� y scool p �I • 1 �I�i(fj��l�'�I�Y�+If10�II111y��»<�'b+�l ��Il�l�� ��i;I�111�II�I��ItiIIIlIVOIJIII�i �II��1��111�uip� ���II l Minimal walk/bike infrastructure rrrr Frequently used by pedestrians and recreational cyclists as a connection to the southern trail system " r ISSUES TO BE SOLVED pl • • ' How can walk/bike mobility be improved? l% What is the needed sizing? / What roadway section should be considered? y I u a, WJNYlYI ,M n �P 1 I rl� ! up rro r ? W I J"tll i! Ir%� � �• � � � ����,"'" �/�ry �J��J � I 1�� ' I , j r�h � � f` I r BEDFORD EULESS ROAD DO �� w CONTEXT MEA LAKES DRIVE CONTEXT Deteriorating pavement ., ,i;i Rehabilitation of pavement needed Some sight-line and alignment issues Concerns of cut-through traffic with Rufe ISSUES TO BE SOLVED Snow/TexRail Station Can this commercial corridor be redesigned to support both residences ISSUES TO BE SOLVED and various business types (office, retail, How can various objectives of corridor restaurants) and promote walkability be accommodated? (i.e. parking, traffic between these uses in the area? calming, residential access, etc.) Can driveway accesses be condensed to reduce curb cuts? k4FtH = . SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• IIINSTII'PU'PIF OF URBAN S'IruDIIIE::S (U'IrA) In partnership with the Birdville Independent 70M School District, the City of North Richland Hills � ���/� sought assistance from the Institute of Urban ( i r k - f '� Studies at the University of Texas at Arlington's j fffffff 1�� it r College of Architecture, Planning & Public Affairs t for the creation of a formal Safe Routes to Schools Plan. IUS first conducted a literature review and r best practices analysis in order to understand the » f R plan framework within the context of successful implementation. IUS then conducted c site a , and walkability analysis for two middle school campuses within the Birdville ISD, covering the .1 geographic areas with influence over the potential Figure 2:WalkabdityArldyaikMar) productivity and success of the proposed plan. whereas in 1969, nearly 50% walked or biked A public engagement process was concurrently (Safe Routes to School National Partnership). The initiated through the creation and distribution of prevalence of obesity in children has tripled, a a survey to parents in order to ascertain common drastic increase in cases of Type 2 Diabetes has interests, issues, and perceived barriers to been recorded, and asthma rates in children development and to foster a sense of community have increased by 160% in the last 15 years; consensus and ownership of the planning efforts additionally, pedestrian injuries are the third moving forward. Finally,IUS developed a prioritized leading cause of unintentional injury-related death implementation plan for achieving the generated in children (Texas Department of Transportation). objectives and recommendations stemming from Safe Routes to School programs and initiatives the previous project components. Improvements seek to create safe, equitable, accessible, and and recommendations are showcased through convenient routes for children to walk and bike maps, prioritized lists, cost estimates (with pertinent to schools. Additional goals include the increase information supplied by the City of North Richland in neighborhood awareness, walking and biking Hills), and programs and policies for consideration. safety, the reversal of the upward nationwide How bleak k000 Y'Ltr cklld walk bike,or5wulex to Bohoelb trend in childhood obesity, and the promotion of IMMIMM.01 fjjj,,., ,, physical activity and engagement. The National HYFitlI (Y .;UM E, Center forSafe Rout esto Schools outlines a number did , k , of tools, training methodologies, and evaluation strategies to catalyze the wide-spread growth of program implementation across the country. il".At" °'h"'°k"'Y0 and fruaadhe To achieve these goals, programs are intended FFFFFFFF ;'C to utilize infrastructure enhancements to improve Nk !, pedestrian mobilityand safety(including bicyclists), as well as non-infrastructure strategies including ; safety education, activities promoting defined safe routes, the inclusion of low enforcement, and Ngure 1:sLJrVeY r,fographles initiatives rooted within the community.The Federal Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Program (established AIR0UT' SIR'IrS in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users Act According to the Safe Routes to School National ((SAFETEALU)) inAugust,2005) established five core Partnership, children today have become less elements to include both infrastructure and non- active, independent, and healthy. In fact, fewer infrastructure elements: Engineering, Education, • than 15% of children walk or bike to school today Enforcement, Encouragement, and Evaluatior* • • • • • 0 NORTH RICHLA HILLS 0000000 ^•—­­­SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOLS PLAN^••••••• • 0 n 2o11 n000 woo mrxm niximum SEEMS ram enreEr DESIGN euxoaaos _ L 211 7p lan 1 L C kn: xM urunnv nS «n ecm vl r r l7 S INI) IS a E 1111 t no )d w ,i A. JivINA0JY AA1WA) r �..? :wr n�4�NB a Jw�mv' m �^ dl f ,. IJ..: (. .' ; r m IS IS umw, x „ �.�f , `,. l i �� ��•Atr ` �,r rl,?' l r k !1Nn1 v14,14�13<14nw9VY �, re ,.� � � �� 1,1 11u ni 1 I r } la. 1 1 IAA N n3SnJJ'_d. a _ % l�. . r I61) n „o.�m�.,�y: kIWY 09 NOR'1.14 a I �) 1 t la(111 �tliWNJalYw+ww.�ui (( C f) b oo•� ryyraww wS xr'do" . wmx I r( 1 1 � � , �L..i.� v 1 J� we [r Vlf a p NA w wJ aWwMEMndW#w '�• ., a �Dhti P, im w V 1 r mm ♦ F c4I� IS 1 �� � i� )�i wo M': 'Memmm w � 0 �, � fir •. mp w J 11J 4 1 f THOROUGHFARE PLAN 1 x "W 111111H I N ry �Adiipuun I)wr Nuxmbbr Id Zf10 Inan¢c Nw ZY81 20011 4100 (1(9)" "1,00 1 ol,00 ............... MINIMUM GEOMETRIC STREET DESIGN STANDARDS Q1 I R5H wyuwIoR -T� Ar 7 1p 1-41 Pot) It LEGEN 'Z 11)ZI !n!M I (ITY LINT III III 1�,IIAEI I E�l�11 7 f In ............ J p DIVII II 1)It()AI)NVA) bwSw ",I AVIS"'m 1614'1� ajoll mmm ON 413 I W, T �l A LlId,— j ......... I A, aa C'I Uld"l— c1l, � aal �411 M111 4—L (-4 J hILL41111 01 It St It I , I �.L4'1, ('2U I AWAL til II I Ind'r.1 I IWY820 NOR FI 4 V -R, ........... .... (21) J Ile A 1111 C2(; v 0 1p Ij .......... M2 c2l) R, AIR j" ':7- Te, C-41' a f IE NI f f u M411 N141i r4RH 11 I THOROUGHFARE PLAN Adoption Date: Nove,.II 12,2007 O,di.a.ce No.2%1 'T North Richland Hills Citywide Trail and Route System Plan TLs r d e. 1 .� r Recommended 9 gcle Flit es x. I .�i.>.. r ' .. ,vaiome .• ,v n-;q.;t n,. ,.,. .,, ... .m,e d Fl y,It'd a' nn5 vilTylm .y.lvlarn Timm .0 .nn.cones 1 1�7,b 0I! drtk