OR 90-489 Adopts new Thoroughfare Plan AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
ORDINANCE NO. 90489
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS, ADOPTING A NEW
CITY OF COPPELL THOROUGHFARE PLAN FOR THE CITY OF COPPELL TO
REPLACE THAT CERTAIN THOROUGHFARE PLAN HERETOFORE APPROVED BY THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COPPELL IN FEBRUARY OF 1987; PROVIDING
A REPEALING CLAUSE; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND DECLARING
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Coppell heretofore in
February of 1987 approved a Comprehensive Plan for the City of
Coppell; and
WHEREAS, pages 20 through 30 and plates 5 and 6 of said
Comprehensive Plan was approved as the Thoroughfare Plan of the
City of Coppell; and
WHEREAS, in June of 1990 Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.,
prepared a new Thoroughfare Plan for the City of Coppell including
Functional Classifications and Design Standards to be used
throughout the City of Coppell together with a Comprehensive Study
of the City's thoroughfare system which became known as the West
Side Throughfare Plan Update Study; and
WHEREAS, said Plan and Study has heretofore been presented to
and accepted by the City Council, and the Council now desires to
formally adopt said report as the new Thoroughfare Plan of the City
of Coppell, NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COPPELL,
TEXAS:
SECTION 1. ADOPTION OF THOROUGHFARE PI~N
That that certain report attached hereto as Exhibit "A"
prepared by Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., dated June, 1990, is
hereby adopted as the Thoroughfare Plan of the City of Coppell,
Texas.
SECTION 2. REPEAI~ING CLAUSE
All parts of ordinances, inconsistent or in conflict with the
provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed. Pages 20 through
30 and plates 5 and 6 of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of
Coppell, heretofore approved in February Of 1987, are specifically
repealed and replaced by the plan herein adopted.
SECTION 3. SEVER/~BILITY CLAUSE
If any article, paragraph or subdivision, clause or provision
of this ordinance shall be adjudged invalid or held
unconstitutional, the same shall not affect the validity of this
ordinance as a whole or any part or provision thereof, other than
the part so decided to be invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE
This ordinance shall take effect immediately from and after
its passage as the law in such cases provides.
DULY PASSED by the City Council of the City of Coppell, Texas,
APPROVED:
,,
ATTEST:
CIT~R~--'
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CO90-1013
ROADWAY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS
AND DESIGN STANDARDS
FOR
CITY OF COPPELL
BY
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc,
ROADWAY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS
AND DESIGN STANDARDS
FOR
CITY OF COPPELL
BY
BARTON-ASCHMAN ASSOCIATES, INC.
5485 Belt Line Road, Suite 199
Dallas, Texas 75240
OCTOBER 1990
ROADI, VAY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS AND DESIGN STANDARDS
FOR CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
CONTENTS PAGE
List of Figures and Tables ii
1. BACKGROUND 1
2. FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS 3
Why Functional Classifications? 3
Roadway Classifications 3
3. SPACING 6
Arterials 6
Collectors 6
Locals 6
4. DESIGN STANDARDS 7
Lanes 7
Standard Cross-Sections 11
Setbacks 12
Intersection Treatments 12
Access Control 12
5. DEVIATION FROM STANDARDS 13
APPENDIX A - TAP Zone Map
APPENDIX B - 1986 and 2010 Demographic Data
APPENDIX C - Standard Cross-Sections
APPENDIX D - Intersection Treatments
LIST OF FIGURES PAGE
1. Roadway Function by Classification ...................................... 2
2. Projected Traffic Volumes ............................................ 9
3. Proposed Thoroughfare System ........................................ 10
LIST OF TABLES
1, Roadway Functional Classifications and
General planning Guidelines ........................................ 5
2, Roadway Lanes by Functional Classification ................................. 7
ii
BACKGROUND
The thoroughfare plan of the City of Coppell is based on system of functionally classified roadways. These
functional classifications are intended to reflect the role or function of each roadway within the overall thoroughfare
system.
The functional classifications describe each roadway's function and reflect a set of characteristics common to all
roadways within each classification. Functions range from providing mobility for through traffic and major traffic
flows to providing access to specific properties. Characteristics unique to each classification include degree of
continuity, general capacity, and traffic control characteristics. Figure I illustrates the relative roles of each
classification to achieve its intended function.
Design standards, as discussed in this report, describe the generalized characteristics of each functional
classification. These characteristics are necessary to insure roadways will serve their intended functions without
resulting in diversion of traffic to or from these facilities. Maintaining these characteristics allows the roadways
to operate as intended, with maximum efficiency and safety.
Complete access control,
little local traffic
ALL MOVEMENT
~,~ '::~:;i?::i~:~::~i?iii:. :t::
g:> :::~:::i: :: :::~/{ :;: : :
z "'; i:i;i:i~:i!.:ii:;;~;:;:;::i::~::! f; :::i !:: ::::~::: ~;:! ;: :::
z ', i~:?ii~'iii:::; !!::i :~ ::!!:~!:~: FUNCTION
I..-
u. ; ': I MOVEMENT
! :: t FUNCTION
'zoo :: : | I
<uJ I No through traffic,
uJo t :
uj I f I 'L
a t
ALL ACCESS [ ]I ,
EXPRESSWAY ARTERIAL COLLECTOR LOCAL CUL
DE
SAC
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION
FIGURE 1
ROADWAY FUNCTION BY CLASSIFICATION
2
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS
WHY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS?
Functional classifications for thoroughfare roadways are needed to provide an underlying basis for determining the
following:
Desired degree of continuity
Capacity level
Traffic control strategy
Design speeds and other general criteria
Access policy
Development criteria (setbacks)
In order to function properly, streets must not only be designed to provide adequately for the desired function, but
must also appear to the driver to be appropriate for the role. Arterial streets typically have four or more lanes,
medians, turn lanes at intersections, wider rights-of-way, higher design speeds, high level of nighttime illumination,
and traffic control which gives them priority at intersections with lower class streets. Local streets have one or two
lanes with low design speeds and restricted right-of-way which tend to limit through movement. The functional
classification system provides a basis for applying these characteristics to the roadway system.
ROADWAY CLASSIFICATIONS
There are four basic functional classifications of roadways. These are:
· Freeways - high capacity facilities with controlled access intended to carry high volumes of longer
distance trips; high capacity supplement to arterial system.
· ,.trterials - carry through traffic between areas. Relatively high speed, continuous, high capacity
roadways with mobility as their priority function. Property access is low priority function,
· Collectors - primary function is to link the local streets with the arterial system; function as
collector-distributors and provide property access to commercial properties.
· Locals - provide access to individual properties. Accommodation of significant through traffic is
not an appropriate function.
City street systems consist of arterials, collectors, and local streets. Freeways are normally under the jurisdiction
of the State Department of Highways and Public Transportation, and are therefore not the responsibility of the
municipalities. The reminder of this discussion, which relates to the city municipal thoroughfare systems,
3
addresses only arterials, collectors, and locals. Typical design standards for a freeway are given, but are not
discussed m detail.
Table 1 describes the most important characteristics of the functional classifications. This functional classification
system is more general than that currently incorporated in the Coppell thoroughfare plan. That plan subdivides the
arterial and collector classifications. However, the actual roles of the classification subdivisions are essentially the
same. The arterial classification contained herein includes such nomenclature as major arterial and minor arterial.
The collector classification includes major collector and minor collector.
4
SPACING
One of the most critical elements in developing a thoroughfare plan is the spacing between roadways of a particular
classification. Most critical is spacing of arterials which form the basic structure of the thoroughfare system.
ARTERIALS
Table 1 shows the desirable spacing for arterials, Under most circumstances, the following spacing is appropriate
for development types existing and projected in Coppell:
- Low to moderate density suburban residential - one mile
- High density residential and moderate density commercial suburban - one-half mile
- Dense commercial - one<luarter mile or less
If these spacings are not achievable, additional capacity should be provided with extra through lanes, grade
separations, limitations of access, intersection improvements, and other treatments to preserve or enhance the
capacity of arterials which can be developed.
COLLECTORS
Spacing of collectors should be in the range of one-quarter mile in the non-residential sectors of Coppell. This
provides flexibility for various configurations of local street systems and adequate capacity to accommodate traffic
needs.
LOCALS
Local streets may be spaced as appropriate to provide access to individual land parcels. Parcel size and development
layouts will dictate the appropriate spacing.
6
DESIGN STANDARDS
For the purposes of this report, design standards include numbers of lanes by functional classification, standard
cross-sections, setbacks, intersection treatments, and access control. Each of these is described in a separate section
below.
LANES
The number of lanes require for each roadway should be determined based on the projected traffic volumes to be
accommodated on each street. The number of lanes may vary from street to street even though their functional
classifications may be the same. Table 2 shows the range in moving traffic lanes by functional classification. Both
arterial and collector classifications contain variations based on the characteristics of the individual streets.
TABLE 2
ROAD~,VAY LANES BY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION
,Lanes1
Arterial - Limited Continuity X X X
Continuous X X
High Capacity/Regional X
Collector - Residential/Commercial X X X
Industrial X X
Local Residential/Commercial X X
aD - divided roadway with median
Thoroughfare plan recommendations were arrived at with the assistance of the North Central Texas Council of
Governments (NCTCOG). NCTCOG has tested the alternative network using the TRANPLAN travel forecast
package. Barton-Aschman and the City provided input to this model in the form of the roadway ne~'ork and
"enhanced" demographic data for the year 2010.
The enhanced demographic data was developed from information received from the Coppell Cormmercial Land
Owners Association. All undeveloped land was assumed to be developed in accordance with the cities adopted land
use plan. Appendix A is a zone map that was used by NCTCOG. The zone map shows how the city was
subdivided for analysis purposes. An estimate was made of the number of employees and residents per zone.
Appendix B has the existing 1986 demographic data and the enhanced year 2010 demographic data per zone. These
employment figures represent a gain of approximately 45,000 employees over what NCTCOG had been assun~ng
for the year 2010.
The resulting traffic volume forecast, illustrated in Figure 2, represents the estimated daily traffic volume projections
for the year 2010 given the thoroughfare system is in place and the population and employment estimates become
reality. Many of these volumes represent a 180 to 300 percent growth in traffic over counts on record for 1986.
The traffic volume projections are used to determine the width of the proposed thoroughfare plan network given
in Figure 3. The following volume criteria, based on the Highway Capacity Manual, is used to determine the street
widths at a level of service C design level:
· Two Lane Roadway - 0 > x > = 10,000 vpd
· Four Lane, Undivided Roadway- 10,000> x > = 20,000 vpd
· Four Lane, Divided Roadway - 20,000> x > = 25,000 vpd
· Six Lane, Divided Roadway -- 25,000> x > = 35,000 vpd
In no case is a thoroughfare exceeding capacity with the recommended widths shown in Figure 3. However, in
some cases additional capacity is recommended due the relationship of the thoroughfare and the adjacent land uses
namely Freeport Parkway and Sandy Lake Road. Where thoroughfares transition from one class of thoroughfare
to another at an intersection special intersection treatments will be necessary.
Some individual thoroughfare issues that have been raised involve Gateway Parkway/Southwestern Parkway, Bethel
Road, Sandy Lake Road and SH 121. The issues that were raised and the recommendations that address those
issues are as follows:
Gatew,av Parl~3ffff/Southv;estern
Issue - How wide should the roads be, four lane divided or undivided'?
Recommendation - Gateway Parkway should be four lane divided between Belt Line Road and
Freeport Parksray and four lane undivided between Freeport Parkway and Royal Lane.
Southwestern should be a two lane undivided. The undivided section will serve as a collector
street in the industrial areas were a large number of trucks are expected. The median in a divided
roadway would be an added obstacle for the large trucks expected to use the roadway.
Bethel Road
Issue - Bethel Road serves the Historical District in Coppell. However, it also serves commercial
and industrial land uses. Does it need to be a six lane divided roadway as called for in the current
plan?
Recommendation - Bethel Road needs to be six lane divided from SH 121 to Royal Lane.
Between Royal Lane and Freeport Parkw~'ay it narrows to four lane undivided. In the Historical
District from Freeport Parkway to Bethel School Road, the traffic projections only justify two
traffic lanes. The existing 50-foot right-of-way is recommended to maintain sensitivity to the
historic structures in this area of the city. From Bethel School to Denton Tap Road, a 90-foot
right-of-way is recommended to accommodate the heavy traffic demands that will be generated
from the developments proposed adjacent to Bethel Road in this area.
"" "' FIGURE 2
VOLUMES IN THOUSANDS AVERAGE
DALLY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
YEAR 2010
9
lo
Satuly Lake Road
Issue - How many lanes are required through the city?
Recommendation - Sandy Lake Road needs to be six lane divided from SH 121 to Freeport
Parkway and the remainder should be four lane divided. Sandy Lake Road will be a major east-
west route through Coppell. Right-of-way should be reserved along the four lane divided section
for the possible expansion to six lane divided if travel demand increases in the future.
SH 121
Issue - How many interchanges should there be and where?
Recommendation - Kimley Horn and Associates, Inc. has been working with the City of Coppell
and District 18 of the State Department of Highways and Public Transportation to revise the
access plan along SH121 that was developed several years ago by Deshazo, Starek, and Tang, Inc.
The City of Coppell should pursue plans that would increase access from the south. The current
plan has just one exit ramp from the south. Having just one exit ramp creates an irabalance in
entrance and exit points that impacts the main lanes of the freeway and an undesirable level of
service at the northbound exit ramp to Freeport Parkway. Further study should be made in an
effort to improve northbound exiting capacity.
STANDARD CROSS-SECTIONS
Roadway cross-sections are composed of a total right-of-way width, pavement widths, median widths, and parkway
widths. Appendix C shows the recommended standard roadway cross-sections for various functional classifications
and numbers of lanes.
These cross-sections represent mid-block conditions. In some instances (discussed under intersection treatments)
the cross-sections will vary in the vicinity of intersections.
These cross-sections have been developed in accordance with the following criteria: (1) 11 to 12-foot lanes, (2)
rmnimum of 10-foot parkwqays, (3) ll-foot single left-turn lanes and 22-foot double left-turn lanes, (4) adjacent to
left-turn lanes, minimum island widths of 6 feet to provide sufficient lateral clearance (2 feet) when signs or signals
are located on medians.
It is recommended that sidewalks be constructed to a minimum width of 4 feet. Sidewalks should be 5 feet or more
in width in non-residential areas or where sidewalks are next to the curb. In commercial areas with no internal
sidewalks where volumes exceed 100 pedestrians per hour, sidewalks should be 10 feet or more in width. In these
~me high volume pedestrian areas; widths beyond the standard cross-sections should be considered. As an
alternative, sidewalks may be considered for public easements adjacent to the right-of-way or on private property
adjacent to the buildings which generate the pedestrian activity.
Several roadways in Coppell that, according to the analysis, should be four lane divided may need to be expanded
in the future due to their regional significance. For this reason it is recommended that the four lane divided
roadways be built in a 110' right-of-way that could accommodate a six lane divided roadway. Those roadways
identified as having potential regional significance include: Sandy Lake Road, Belt Line Road/Gateway Boulevard,
Parkway Boulevard, Freeport Parkway, Belt Line Road/Denton Tap Road, and MacArthur Boulevard.
11
SETBACK
Setbacks of buildings and parking facilities from right-of-way lines are desirable to provide space for landscaping,
additional sidewalk or parkway width, and possible unanticipated street widenrags, as per the City of Coppell
Streetscape Plan. It is recommended that setbacks be 15 feet on both sides of each street at all intersections of
arterials with other arterials. This setback will allow for double left and free right turn lanes. It would be desirable
to maintain a setback of 15 feet after the auxilary lanes were added at an intersection.
INTERSECTION TREATMENTS
At intersections between arterial and collector streets, special treatments should be considered to provide sufficient
capacity to accommodate existing or projected volumes. The~se treatments may include left-turn lanes, right-turn
lanes, double left-turn lanes, or grade separations. In unusual cases other types of improvements may be
appropriate. These could include left-turn flyovers, bus priority provisions, light rail, transit stop platforms, etc.,
however, these are special cases that are not covered under design standards and do not appear to be necessary for
the City of Coppell. Each intersection treatment will be designed based on the specific needs of that location.
It is appropriate and advisable to reserve sufficient right-of-way to accommodate probable intersection
improvements. In many instances, additional right-of-way near the intersection will be required to accommodate
the turning movement needs at the intersection. Appendix D shows the additional right-of-way necessary to
accommodate recommended intersection treatments at all major intersections in the study area. Figure D-11 shows
some typical treatments for minor intersections. The figure shows the comer cuts required to provide 25 foot curb
radii in residential areas, and 30 foot curb radii in commercial areas.
One intersection treatment of particular note is recommended at Royal and Gateway which is shown in Figures D-SA
and B. The interim treatment allowing all movements at this intersection should be allowed until it operates at a
level of service D or worse. At that time, the City should implement a more restrictive treatment that will improve
the intersection's operation. One such suggested treatment is illustrated in Figure D-SB.
ACCESS CONTROL
A recommended access control policy should be prepared for utilization within the City of Coppell. This policy
should contain standard provisions which are generally applicable to Coppell.
12
DEVIATION FROM STANDARDS
It is rotended that the above functional classifications and design standards be used throughout the City of Coppell.
It is recognized that some exceptions may be necessary. For example, special intersection treatments to provide
left or right-turn lanes on collector streets may be desirable. Also, design exceptions to accommodate the special
needs of certXm areas may be necessary. Each potential exception should be carefully reviewed to determine if
other alternatives exist. This is particularly imporlant for any proposals which would reduce potential capacity
offered by standard criteria.
13
APPENDIX A
TAP ZONE MAP
~ 309 306 149
308
318 303
302 ~
314 304
300
270
275 272 ~ " 273
269 268
2~4
267
55 282 278 285 2862~e~ 291 260 ~
279 281 t5 280 2 ~ 29029
353 62 ~ 266 257 259
559 264 263 ~ ~
352 568 557 294 293 255
~~ 2 253
387
APPENDIX B
1986 AND 2010 DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
0
APPENDIX C
STANDARD CROSS-SECTIONS
AA-FREEWAY
MAIN Z :~ ~z MAIN 3: a~
LANES ~ LANES ~ ~
50' 34' 65' ~ , 48' ~16'~ 48' 65' 34' 50'
450' R.O.W.
DESIGN ELEMENT STANDARD
Minrmum Desirable Recommended
Number of Lanes 4 as required as required
Lane Widths (feet) 11 12 12
Right-of-Way Width (feet) 300 450 450
Design Speed (MPH) 60 70 70
Grade (percent) 0.5 mirL 4 max. 3-4+_
Stopping Sight Distance (feet) 525-650 825-850 625-650
Horizontal Curvature(rain. rsdius, feet~ ~,~00 x ~.900
Vertical Clearance (feet) ~5 16.5
Capacity (six lane, vpd) = 100,000
'Normal Crown
FIGURE C- 1
P6D-MAJOR ARTERIAL
MAIN LANES MEDIAN MAIN LANES
13.5' 33' . , 17' , 33' ·
,
110' R.O.W.
DESIGN ELEMENT STANDARD
Mbimum Deskable Recommended
Number of Lanes 6 6 6
Lane Widths (feet)
Right-of Way Width (feet) ~00 ~ ~0 ~ ~0
Design Speed (MPH) 40 50 50
Grade (percent) O,5min, 6 max, 4-~_
Stopping Sight Distance (feet) 275-325 400-475 400-475
Horizontal Curvature(min. radius, feet') 850 x ~200
Vertical Clearance (feet) ~5 15+
Lateral Clearance (feet) 2 6 6
Median Opening Spacing (feet) 300 530 500
Capacity (vpd) = 35/)00
'Normal Crown
FIGURE C-2
C4D-MINOR ARTERIAL
MAIN LANES MEDIAN MAIN LANES cO
12.5' _'_ 24' _', 17' ~i, 24' ,, _ 12.5' _
90' R.O.W.
DESIGN ELEMENT STANDARD
Minkman Desiral~e Recunmended
Number of Lanes 4 4 4
Lane Widths (feet) I 1 12 12
Right-of Way Width (feet) 8o 9o 90
Design Speed (MPH) 40 x 50
Grade (percent) o.5 rob. s max 4--~_
Stopping Sight Distance (feet) 275-325 400-475 4oo-475
Horizontal Curvature (min. radius, feet)' 800 x 1.ooo
Vertical Clearance (feet) ~5 15+ 15+
Lateral Clearance (feet) 2 5 6
Median Opening Spacing (feet) 300 530 500
Capacity (vpd) = 25,000
'Normal Crown
FIGURE C-3
C4U-MINOR ARTERIAL
DESIGN ELEMENT STANDARD
Minierich Deskable Recommended
Number of Lanes 4 4 4
Lane Widths (feet) 11 12 12
Right-of Way Width (feet) 65 70 70
Design Speed (MPH) 35 x 45
Grade (percent) 0.5 6 max
Stopping Sight Distance (feet) 225-250 325-400 325-400
Horizontal Curvature (min. radius, 450 1,000 1,000
feet)'
Vertical Clearance (feet) 15 15+ 15+
Lateral Clearance (feet) 2 6 6
Capacity (vlxI) = 20,000
'Normal Crown
FIGURE C-4
C5U-MAJOR COLLECTOR
--Q 4-LANES WITH CENTER TURN LANE --
14° . . 62' , _ 14'
· 90~ R.O.W. "
DESIGN ELEMENT STANDARD
Minkhum Desirable Recommended
Number of Lanes 5 5 5
Lane Widths (feet) 11 12 12
Right-of Way Width (feet) 80 90 90
Design Speed (MPH) 35 x 45
Grade (percent) 0.5 mb 6 m=x ~
Stopping Sight Distance (feet) 225-250 325-400 325-400
Horizontal Curvature(rain, radius, feet)' 450 670 670
Vertical Clearance (feet) ~5 ~5+ ~5+
Lateral Clearance (feet) 2 6 6
Continuous Left Turn Lane Width (feet) ~2 14' 14'
Capacity (vpd) = 20~00
'Normal Crown
NOTE: C4D my be substituted
FIGURE C-5
C4U-MAJOR COLLECTOR
-- 4-LANES --a
11' wi' 48' l~ 11' ·
70* R.O.W.
DESIGN ELEMENT STANDARD
Minimum Desirable Recommended
Number of Lanes 4 4 4
Lane Widths (feet) 11 12 12
Right-of Way Width (feet) 85 70 70
Design Speed (MPH) 30 x 40
Grade (percent) o~ m~ 10 max 1-~0~_
Stopping Sight Distance (feet) 200-275 275-325 275-325
Horizontal Curvature(rain. radius,fee~) 450 670 670
Vertical Clearance (feet) 15' 15+ 15+
Lateral Clearance (feet) 2 6 6
Capacity (vpd) = 20~xx)
'Normal Crown
FIGURE C-6
C2U-COLLECTOR
m 2-LANES m
~ PARKING PERMITTED ONE SIDE 9
11~' , ~ 32' ~ · 11~'
55° R,O.W
PARKING PERMITTED BOTH SIDES
60' R.O.W,
DESIGN ELEMENT STANDARD
Mhkrgn Deakab~ Re<xxnmended
Number of Lanes 2 2 2
Lane Widths (feet) 11 12 12
Right-of Way Width (feet) 50 60 60
Design SI:~ (MPH) 30 x 35
Grade (percent) o~ 10 7-10~
Stopping Sight Distance (feet) 200-225 225-250 225-250
Horizontal Curvature (rain. radius. feet)' 300 450 450
Vertical Clearance (feet) ~5 ~5+ ~
Lateral Clearance (feet) 2 e 6
Capacity (vlx!) = 10,000
FIGURE C-7
'Normal Crown
RESIDENTIAL
2 LANES
·
11.5' ~ 27° ~ -, 11.5°
50' R,O,W.
DESIGN ELEMENT STANDARD
Minkruin Deskable Rec~,.,.ended
Number of Lanes 2 2 2
Lane Widths (feet) 1 ~ ~2 ~ ~
Right-of Way Width (feet) 50 50 50
Design Speed (MPH) 25 x 30
Grade (percent) 0,5 rain ~5 max 4-~5~
Stopping Sight Distance (feet) ~50-200 200-225 200-225
Horizontal Curvature(rain. radius.fee{) 200 200 300
Vertical Clearance (feet) ~5 ~5+ ~5+
Lateral Clearance (feet) 2 6 6
Capacity (vlxI) = 5.000
'Normal Crown
FIGURE C-8
APPENDIX D
INTERSECTION TREATMENTS
I I II
I
I I
· i I I
Scale: 1°=100' 0
QI
I
I i II !
I I I
Parkway
z4,~:~,,
_~- .....
..... 1
I
I
1 II
I
I
33' [17: 33'
I '°~ ! I
INTERSECTION TREATMENTS AT DENTON TAP/PARKWAY
FIGURE D- 1
~ .
.,,3a',,
II I
O
~1 J~ I II I
_ I
"' 117'
Sandy Lake
-- 'i~,~, ",--~ ....
I
I
24' 24'
INTERSECTION TREATMENTS AT FREEPORT/SANDY LAKE
FIGURE D-2
110'
"7'
· ~1 il
F~
scale; 1"=10o'
o :~l
" I It II
I
I 117'
I E i
II I
INTERSECTION TREATMENTS AT DENTON TAP/SANDY LAKE
FIGURE D-3
11o'
I
Scale: 1'= 100° LL
I
I
Bethel
, -- ,~ ,'~ ~, --
" ~ "'1
I
I
Z
I
Z
~ I
INTERSECTION TREATMENTS AT FREEPORT/BETHEL
FIGURE D-4
110'
I
I
I
o
Scale: 1°= 100'
I
I
Bethel
-- .24~- ~, .....
· - /,_ ~,
'~"~I ' ' '1:
I
I
aa' lr 33
1 11)j
INTERSECTION TREATMENTS AT ROYAL/BETHEL
FIGURE D-5
110'
,33' 17',33°,,
I
Scale: 1'= 100'
~ I II
II
Belhel
" II,.jIl~,
-- ~
I
INTERSECTION TREATMENTS AT DENTON TAP/BETHEL
FIGURE D-6
I
I I I
I
I
I
Scale: 1'= 100'
: __
o
o,
I:_~ ~,,,. __ Southwester_n_
__
, I
I
~
I
I t I
I I
INTERSECTION TREATMENTS AT FREEPORT/SOUTHWESTERN
FIGURE D-7
II II
110'
\ I
NOt tO Scale
II II
FIGURE D-8A
INTERIM INTERSECTION TREATMENTS
AT ROYAL/GATEWAY
Not to 8c8|e
Royel
FIGURE D-8B
FUTURE INTERSECTION TREATMENTS
AT ROYAL/GATEWAY
I
I
II I
Sca, le: 1'-- 100'
I
I--
o I I
I ' ' '1~1 ---
111 .
I ~ I
I ~1 I
I~ I
'1
II
INTERSECTION TREATMENTS AT DENTON TAP/BELT LINE/GATEWAY
FIGURE D-9
I
I
I I
I
I ~
Scale: 1' = 100' U.. I
I
I I
I I
INTERSECTION TREATMENTS AT FREEPORT/GATEWAY
FIGURE D-IO
~- 34'__~.,
5'R 25'
~ ~ 2 LANE LOCAL
~ ~ ~o'
TREATMENT A
60' or 64'
40' or 44'
· - / \
I
Commercial And irdustrial Areas.
, 4 LANE LOCAL
OR COLLECTOR
TREATMENT B
FIGURE D-11
INTERSECTION TREATMENTS
A AND B
.