Trail System Master Plan-960228t t
City or copjWu
Trail System Master Plan
February 1996
Newman, Jackson, Bieberstein, Inc
City of Coppell
Trail System Master Plan
July, 1995
Prepared by:
Newman, Jackson, Bieberstein, Inc.
Landscape Architects
City of Coppell
Table of Contents
Introduction ................. 1
Purpose ................... 1
Goals and Objectives ........... 1
Planning Process .............. 2
Inventory And Analysis .......... 5
Streets & Thoroughfares ........ 5
Related Planning Documents ..... 5
Parks & Other Public Facilities .... 6
Opportunities & Constraints ...... 6
Trail System Master Plan .........
9
Off -Road Hike & Bike Trails .....
9
Types of Trail Corridors ........
9
Criteria ...................
11
Location of Trail Corridors ......
11
Description of Recommended
65
Off -Road Trails ............
11
Primary Trails ...............
12
Secondary Trails .............
17
On- Street Bicycle Routes ........
19
Pedestrian Sidewalks ..........
23
Trail System Standards ..........
25
Bicyclist Types .............
25
Primary Corridors ............
26
Secondary Corridors ..........
30
Access Points ..............
32
Detail Design Standards
65
Hike & Bike Trails .........
33
On -Street Connectors ..........
51
Bicycle Route System ..........
51
Bicycle Parking .............
54
Master Plan Implementation ....... 57
Prioritization ............... 57
Implementation Components ..... 58
i
Check List ................
61
Funding Sources .............
63
Local Funding ...............
63
Federal Assistance ...........
64
Mechanisms to Encouraage Trail
83
System Development .........
65
Land Acquisition ............
65
Joint Development Techniques ....
66
Preservation of Corridor Resource
86
Promotion of Bicycling as an
Alternative Transportation Mode .
67
Bicycle Parking .............
67
Bicycle Use Education Program ...
68
Security Concerns Regarding
Multi-Use Paths ..............
Adjacent Land Owner Concerns ...
Trail User Security Concerns .....
70
Trail System Master Plan References .. 72
Appendix A - Thoroughfare
Cross - Sections ..............
74
Appendix B - Bicycle Route Notes ...
82
Appendix C - Wide Outside
Lane Considerations ..........
83
Appendix D - Relative Bicycle
Safety ...................
85
Appendix E -Texas Bicycle Law
Summary and Excerpts ........
86
Appendix F - Detailed System Cost
Estimates .................
90
Figures
Trail System Master Plan ......... 10
Bicyclist Types ............... 25
Figures, continued
Access Points ................
26
School Sites .................
26
Parks .....................
26
Drainage Ways & Natural
45
Features .................27
45
Fluid Alignment ..............
27
Straight Alignment .............
27
Trail Accessibility .............
28
Primary Trail Graphics ..........
2B
Primary Corridor Right-of-Way .....
29
Corridor Elevations ............
30
Secondary Corridors ............
30
Signs .....................
31
Secondary Corridor Right -of -Way ...
31
Trail Access Points ............
32
Trail Access Points ............
32
Access Point ................
33
Access Point - End of Cul -De -Sac ...
33
Access Point ................
33
Development Guidelines .........
33
Hike and Bike Trails ...........
34
Minimum Length of Vertical Curves ..
35
Minimum Lateral Clearances ......
36
Minimum Stopping Sight Distances ...
37
Trail Markings ...............
37
Trail Slopes .................
38
Trail Drainage ...............
38
Drainage Flow Problem .........
38
Water Fountains ..............
39
Obstacle -Free Area ............
39
Lighting ...................
40
Rub Rail ...................
40
Warning Signs ...............
41
Directional Signs ..............
41
Information Signs .............
41
Regulatory Signs ..............
42
Identification Markers ...........
42
City of Coppell
Mow Pads ..................
42
Mid -Block Crossing ............
43
Bollard Post Striping ...........
44
Road Table .................
45
Conflicts at a Four -Way Intersection ..
45
Non - Signalized Intersection .......
47
Signalized Intersection ..........
47
Freeway Underpass ............
48
Trail Maps .................
48
Train Jointing ................
49
Special Overlooks .............
49
Spin - Off - Trails ...............
50
Kiosks ....................
50
Route Signage ...............
52
Bicycle Route Assurance Sticker ....
53
Acute Angle Bikeway ...........
53
Obtuse Angle Bikeway ..........
54
Detector Loops ...............
54
Bicycle Parking Devices .........
55
Bicycle Parking Signage .........
55
Exhibits
Off -Road Trail System .......... 13
On -Road Bicycle Route System ..... 20
Off -Road Trail System Components .. 59
City of Coppell
Introduction
• Purpose
• Goals and Objectives
• Planning Process
City of CoppeU
INTRODUCTION
The Trail System Master Plan was
developed to be used with the city's Parks,
Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan.
These two documents together provide an
integrated plan for the development of the
city's growing park and recreation system.
The final location and design of the facilities
called for in this master plan will require
approval by council as each part is prepared
for implementation.
Purpose
This Master Plan is a guide for the
development of bikeways, equestrian ways,
and pedestrianways for the City of Coppell.
It has been developed as a direct response to
recent needs expressed b;y citizens to
Council and in a 1988 citizens' survey of
park facility needs.
With these thoughts in mind, the purpose of
this plan is to give long range development
direction to a trail system that serves the
needs of pedestrians and bicyclists. In
accomplishing this, it is anticipated that the
system will be composed of the following
components:
• A dedicated "off - road" hike /bike
system located in road rights -of -way,
greenbelts and linear parks.
• A system of bicycle routes through the
City of Coppell utilizing existing and
proposed thoroughfares.
Goals & Objectives
The 1994 Coppell Park, Recreation, and
Open Space Master Plan set forth related
objectives that address Trail System
Planning:
Provide a linear system that will
promote walking, jogging, and cycling
as recreational activities as well as
providing a link to varied destination
points about the city utilizing
thoroughfares, tributaries, easements,
rights -of -ways, etc.
• Preserve and enhance creek floodplains,
as linear greenbelts.
A 1988 citizens survey ranked 20 facility
needs and "walking/hiking trails ", "cycling
trails ", and "running trails" were ranked
two, six, and eight, respectively. The trails
called for in this plan will be multi-use trails
and will meet all three of the just listed trail
needs.
In the same 1988 survey, 76% stated they
would "like to see a network of
jogging/cycle routes designated on existing
streets in Coppell'. This strongly supports
the on -road bicycle route system called for
in this plan. It also strongly points to the
need for sidewalks along every road.
As a result of initial interviews with staff
and an evaluation of trail system
opportunities and constraints, we have
identified the following goals for this
Citywide Trail System:
•
11
•
F1
To provide a system that will encourage
the creation of a linear park system
along the creek corridors and tributaries
in the few remaining undeveloped and
unplatted parts of the city so that these
resources can be preserves] and utilized
for all citizens of Coppell.
To provide a system that utilizes
existing rail and utility corridors for
walking, jogging, and bicycling.
To provide a system that connects to
recognized "trail corridors" and
greenways forming the North Central
Texas Council of Governments
(NCTCOG) All-Ways Trail System.
To provide a system that encourages
and promotes pedestrian and bicycle
access to Andrew Brown, Jr.
Community Park.
To provide a system that links existing
parks, schools, and public facilities in
the city and promotes bicycling,
walking, and jogging as a recreational
activity.
To promote bicycle use as a viable
personal transportation mode within a
balanced transportation system.
To increase safety for both, pedestrians
and bicyclists through the
implementation of a carefully designed
plan to educate and inform pedestrians,
motorists, and bicyclists.
City of Coppell
To provide a system that is barrier
free and offers accessibility to the
physically impaired.
Planning Process
Newman, Jackson, Bieberstein, Inc. began
this study in the fall of 1994 with a review
of goals and objectives of the trail system
with the city staff. An extensive site and
visual assessment of the city was then
conducted which included driving all of the
streets and documenting the following:
• origin and destination points
• condition of existing thoroughfares
• current land use
• major features and landmarks
• existing and proposed school sites
• existing and proposed park sites
Upon reviewing the analysis, as well as the
city's current thoroughfare plan, zoning, and
subdivision ordinance, a preliminary routing
plan was prepared and reviewed with City
Staff, the Parks and Recreation Board, and
interested citizens and council members.
The comments and suggestions from these
meetings were incorporated into a final plan
which was presented and approved by both
Parks and Recreation Board,. The plan was
also presented to the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
City of Coppell
Inventory and .Analysis
• Streets and Thoroughfares
• Related Planning Documents
• Parks and Other Public Facilities
• Opportunities and Constraints
INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
An inventory and analysis of the city was
completed before a plan was developed.
Related planning documents, streets,
thoroughfares, parks, and other public
facilities, development, and land use were
all examined and analyzed as part of this
process.
STREETS and
THOROUGHFARES
An onsite evaluation was conducted of the
existing streets and thoroughfares within the
city. Each street was rated on accessibility
and condition. The criteria used in rating
the streets was based on a bicyclist's point
of view of safe and pleasurable cycling.
The streets were each assigned a number
from one to five. Gravel roads and narrow
streets with high traffic were given the
lowest rating (1). Wide streets with low
traffic loads (usually residential) were given
the highest rating (5). Using information
available from the current Thoroughfare
Plan, evaluations were made for the
north/south and east/west on -road bike
routes.
RELATED PLANNIN(:
DOCUMENTS
AASHTO Bicycle Facility Guidelines. The
American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) has
published a guide to provide information on
the development of facilities to enhance and
encourage safe bicycle travel. The most
City of Coppell
recent version, dated August, 1991, was
used in developing the city's trail system.
Dallas Bike Plan. Provides reference
material on bikeway design and parking
standards, bike route signs, and bicycle
facility costs.
Parks, Recreation, and Open Space
Master Plan. Staff completed this plan in
1994 and it provided significant information
that greatly assisted in preparing this plan:
• Showed significant creeks and
drainageways.
• Showed utility easements and rail
right -of way.
• Showed initial routings for the on -road
bicycle route system.
• Showed strong citizen support for both
the off -road multi-use trails and the
on -road bicycle route system.
• Showed existing and planned parks.
• Showed existing and planned schools.
Other Current City Plans and Documents:
• Zoning Ordinance, City of Coppell
• City of Coppell Subdivision Ordinance
• Major Thoroughfare Plan of the City
of Coppell
E
City of Coppell
• City -Wide Storm Water Management
Study for the City of Coppell, Texas
• City of Coppell Standard Construction
Details
Coppell Independent School District Map.
Provided school attendance zones for the
elementary, intermediate, middle, and high
schools. These zones were used to identify
opportunities to provide trails linking
neighborhoods with the schools.
PARKS and OTHER PUBLIC
FACILITIES
The City of Coppell has two categories of
public parks: developed and undeveloped.
The following lists, taken from the Parks,
Recreation and Open Space Master Plan,
identifies current and proposed parks in each
category:
Developed Parks:
• Allen Road
• Andrew Brown, Jr. Community
• Big Cedar
• The Duck Pond
• Grapevine Springs
• Hunterwood
• Middle School Athletic Complex
• Parkwood
Undeveloped Parks:
• Grapevine Creek
• Fire Station/Park Site
• Villawood
• Woodhurst
Elementary and middle schools within the
district's limits were noted as well:
:1
• Future Elementary School at Samuel
Boulevard and MacArthur Boulevard
• Coppell High School
• Coppell Middle School - West
• Coppell Middle School - East
• W.H. Wilson Elementary
• W.W. Pinkerton Elementary
• Barbara Austin Elementary
• Richard J. Lee Elementary
• Mockingbird Elementary
• Lakeside Elementary
• Town Center Elementary
• Future Elementary School SE of
Coppell Road at Minyard
Two future schools in Valley Ranch in
Irving were not included in this Master Plan
because both schools (and their surrounding
land and roads) are not under City of
Coppell's control.
Other Public Facilities:
• Town Center
• Historic Town Center (Bethel Road
roughly between Coppell Road and
Park Road)
• Vista Ridge Mall, Lewisville
• McInnish Park, Carrollton
• North Lake Park, Dallas (operated by
Wig)
OPPORTUNITIES and
CONSTRAINTS
Information gathered from the inventory and
analysis were studied for its positive and
negative influences on the city. These
observations are described as opportunities
and constraints.
Opportunities exist for inter -city, connections
with Grapevine, Carrollton, Irving, and
Lewisville.
In reviewing the opportunities and
constraints, four major restrictions became
clear:
• the lack of public open space corridors
within the city
• the interim nature of many of the
thoroughfares within the city
• the city is boxed in by natural and man-
made barriers
• access to public land on both sides of
Denton Creek is limited
Lack of Public Open Space Corridors.
Coppell has several open space corridors
that are largely unusable because of private
ownership to the center line of the creeks.
Denton Creek, Cottonwood Creek, and
Grapevine Creek are good examples. It is
almost impossible to route public trails
through large areas of private ownership.
Interim Nature of Existing
Thoroughfares. Coppell has an adopted
thoroughfare plan that calls for
improvements to its major thoroughfares as
the city develops and increased traffic
warrants. Many of the citif's roads are
currently undeveloped and will ultimately be
upgraded in the future. The undeveloped
roads do not lend themselves to
accommodating pedestrians and bicyclists at
a reasonable cost. This means that trail and
wide outside lane construction along
undeveloped roads should wait for road
construction. This in turn will require
careful coordination between the phasing of
City of Coppell
the thoroughfare plan and the trail master
plan.
The City is Boxed In. Coppell is boxed in
all four directions in regard to easy bicycle
and pedestrian movement in and out of the
city. To the north: Denton Creek has very
few bridges and none of them are friendly to
non - motorized users. The new S.H. 121
bypass will add a second barrier running
parallel to Denton Creek when it is
completed. To the east: Denton Creek and
the Elm Fork of the Trinity River create the
same situation as to the north. The future
S.H. 190 connection to S.H. 161 will add a
second barrier when the new north/south
road is built just east of Coppell. To the
west: S.H. 121 and D /FW Airport are the
non - motorized barrier. To the south: I.H.
635 (LBJ Freeway), Belt Line Road, Texas
Utilities' North Lake generating plant and
Grapevine Creek complete the barrier ring.
The "box" can be broken, but the solutions
will require a large amount of planning and
be fairly expensive.
Limited Access to Denton Creek. A large
portion of Denton Creek in the eastern part
of the city has been lost to private
ownership of the creek. However, the
northern part of the creek has major
stretches already in public ownership and a
fair amount of creek front where developer -
provided trail easements will enhance the
public lands. It is very important to open
up the public land with a trail system. It is
also important to be sure that each future
development in the north provides trail
easements to ensure future public enjoyment
of the beautiful Denton Creek.
Fh
City of Coppell
Trail System Master Plan
• Off -Road Hike and Bike Trails
• Types of Trail Corridors
• Criteria
• Location of Trail Corridors
• Description of Trail Corriodors
Primary Trails and Greenwalks
Secondary Trails
• On- Street Bicycle Routes
• Trail Connections
• Pedestrian Sidewalks
8
TRAIL SYSTEM[ MASTER PLAN
The Trail System Master Plan augments the
current automobile- oriented Thoroughfare
Plan to include a variety of trails and travel
routes that give all users, on wheels and
foot, a safer and more efficient way of
getting around the city and beyond to
surrounding areas.
This Master Plan provides a way to satisfy
the needs of the users with four additional
travel alternatives:
• off -road hike and bike trails
• on -street bicycle routes
• pedestrian sidewalks
Off -Road Hike and Bike Trails
Off -road trails provide alternatives to busy
roads for non - motorized commuters while
also providing a different user experience
for recreational and commuter users. From
a recreation standpoint, these multi-use trails
will be used by bicyclists, skaters, roller -
bladers, and persons walking or jogging. In
addition, these trails will offer excellent
opportunities for use by physically
challenged individuals and must be carefully
designed to be barrier free in accordance
with ADA guidelines. The trails can also
provide an eductional opportunity by
incorporating interpretive features in
appropriate areas. The transportation and
linkage system which trails provide is
designed to meet the needs of both the
commuter and the recreational user.
City of Coppell
The off -road component of this Trail System
will be accomplished by routing trails within
"trail corridors". These trail corridors are
linear open spaces that may occur.
• along existing thoroughfares,
• along draingeways, creeks, and
tributaries,
• within larger tracts of public open
space,
• along or within utility easements or
railroad rights -of -way.
Types of Trail Corridors
Primary Corridors and Trails. These are
corridors about the city that would have the
potential of connecting or linking the major
areas and interest points within Coppell.
These primary corridors and the trails
withinthem would make up the network or
basic structure of the Trail System Master
Plan. figure 1- Trail System Master Plan
Components and Width Criteria outlines
the desired right -of -way for primary
corridors. Also indicated is the minimum
right -of -way for design and buffering within
the corridor. Trails within these corridors
would be 12 feet in width which would
handle anticipated multi-use for facilities of
this type that provide cross -city linkages.
E
City of Coppell
Trail System Master Plan Components
and Recommended Width Criteria ��a ° Ln
Prirtwy Corridor (Hike & Bike)
40::30
20
12
Gnmw walk
24 24
24
10
8ecwndoy Ccxrklor "ke &8ft,)
[30 2T
20
10
Figure 1 - Trail System Master Plan Components and Width Criteria
Greenwalk Corridors. Because there are
few primary corridors currently available in
Coppell, this plan recommends the creation
of "Greenwalk Corridors" along selected
thoroughfares in order to facilitiate the
implementation of the Trail System Master
Plan. These corridors are referred to as
"Greenwalks" because they should be
planned and implemented to maintain the
natural vegetation whenever possible within
the street right -of -way and to introduce
street trees and understory into the
streetscape setting to promote a green,
landscaped image for these thoroughfares.
Ideally, these corridors would require an
expanded right -of -way of 24 feet on one side
of the street to allow development of a 10
foot off -street trail.
10
Secondary Corridors. Secondary corridors
are used to provide trail access to specific
users. Because they would be less traveled
and feed into primary corridors, they should
be narrower in width. The desired right -of-
way should be 30 feet in width with25 feet
being the minimum required. See IRi%m 1,
Trail System Master Plan Components
and Width Criteria.
It is proposed that these off -road trails
would be develoed by both the city and by
private development. This shared
responsibility of development will be
discussed as the various components of the
system are described.
Criteria
In planning this trail system, the following
criteria were considered:
• Locate trails to provide access to
schools, parks, destination points, and
points of interest.
• Create a circulation network linking
individual trails and develop a series of
shorter trail loops for less demanding
recreational outings.
• Locate trails where right-of-way can
realistically be obtained. This allows
trails to be implemented withinthe
context of the existing city infrastructure.
• Create a realistic implementation
program that will include phasing and
identificationof funding sources.
• Locate trails so they will follow the
guidelines presented in the Master Plan
Standards.
Location of Trail Corridors
The off -road trail corridors are located in
drainageways, street rights-of--way, and open
space along DentonCreek.
Trail Corridors in Drainageways.
Drainageways (creeks, channels,and
seasonal streams) provide two key
advantages for locating an off'-road hike and
bike trail system:
• The creeks provide a natural, winding
City of Coppell
corridor which is aesthetically
pleasing.
When creek corridors cross city limits,
they provide a definite connecting
point into neighboring trail systems.
Because property ownership patterns in
Coppell have allowed private ownership to
the centerlines of creeks and drainageways,
this avenue of trail corridor development
will be limited to large unplatted tracts or
those smaller tracts adjacent to drainageways
where redevleopment is likely to occur and
the city can work cooperatively with the
developer to secure the necessary public
open space corridors.
Trails in Street Rights -of -Way. Coppell's
major resource for trails is its network of
streets and thoroughfares. This plan
proposes the use of an expanded right -of-
way to allow a 10 -foot wide off- street trail
to meander through a 24 -foot parkway on
one side of selected streets within the city.
Trails in Open Space. Finally, the Corps
of Engineers open space along Lake
Grapevine offers a great opportunity to
provide a major hike and bike connection to
Grapevine and to Trophy Club. It will also
provide the citizens of Coppell with an
outstanding recreational opportunity.
Description of Recommended Off -Road
Trails
The trail locations, names, and trail types
are shown on the master plan. Refer to
Exhibit 1: Off -Road Trail System. The off -
road hike and bike trails were given names
11
City of Coppell
to avoid confusion with the numbered on-
street bike routes.
The different types of off -road trails that
make up the system are illustrated on the
plan. These include: (1) primary trails, (2)
greenwalks, (3) secondary trains.
Primary Trails. The primary trails connect
major areas and points of interest in the
city. These primary trails make up the
network or basic structure of the Trail
System Master Plan. Meandering through
the city, the primary trails follow drainage
and utility corridors. Taken together, these
trails create the overall trail system. All are
to be developed by the City.
• Cottonbelt Trail - This grail intersects
with seven trails including the Dal -Homa
Trail. It will play a major part in
Coppell's connections to other areas.
The trail could ultimately go from the
Fort Worth Stockyards on the west to
McKinney on the east. Within Coppell,
the trail will cross the entire city east to
west from Carrollton to Grapevine.
The "best" trail routing will probably be
on the south side of the rail line. As the
rail line will remain active, extensive
coordination with DART (the rail line
owner) will be needed before the trail is
built. The section of trail on D /FW
International Airport land will provide
some additional opportunities for users to
enjoy landings and take -offs from the
trail, but will also require extensive
coordination with airport officials to
make certain airport and trail operations
don't interfere with each other.
• Cowboy Trail - The Cowboy Trail is a
north/south trail running generally along
12
Denton Tap Road from the Cottonbelt
Trail on the south to the Denton Creek
Trail on the north.
On the north end, in Andrew Brown, Jr.
Community Park West, the trail will split
into two before both branches end at the
Denton Creek Trail. This split is important
to maintaining through trail traffic continuity
in case the Denton Creek Trail moves to
the north side of Denton Creek while still
east of Denton Tap Road
From Wynnpage at Denton Tap Road, the
trail goes southeast (to Heartz) and
northwest (to Sandy Lake Road) along the
Lone Star Gas pipeline easement. Along the
northwest branch, the trail splits before
reaching Sandy Lake Road and the main
branch goes straight north to Coppell High
School on its way to Andrew Brown, Jr.
Community Park West.
• Dal-Homa Trail - Dal -Homy Trail
runs along the Elm Fork of the Trinity
River and will provide regional
connection as it goes from downtown
Dallas to lake Texoma. It is unclear
which bank the trail will follow as it
travels north through the
Coppell/Carrollton area. If it is on the
east bank, Carrollton will be
responsible for the trail's design,
whereas Coppell will be taking the
lead if the trail ends up on the west
bank.
Due to the city limit line being on the
west bank of the river, the trail might
be "in" Carrollton even if it is on the
west side of the river. The Riverchase
Golf Course will play a significant role
to determine the feasibility of a west
bank routing.
Exhibit 1 - Off -Road Trail System
�IVeww��Jactmn. Birber�,lwc.
City of Coppell
Trail System
Masterplan
Graaawalt/irall
o&WH Raglaaal Trau
.......... Graaawaur/rraR opts"
13
City of Coppell
• Denton Creek Trail - The Denton Creek
Trail will provide connections from Lake
Grapevine on the west to the Dal -Homa
Trail on the east. Although the trail will
run all the way to Lake Grapevine on the
west, the Coppell portion of the trail
ends at the city limit (just west of S.H.
121).
The trail will be on the south bank of
Denton Creek from the west end to near
Denton Tap Road. It will then cross to
the north side at Denton Tap Road. The
crossing may be slightly GD the west of
Denton Tap Road if' residential
development allows for a crossing of the
creek in the middle of Andrew Brown,
Jr. Community Park West. A spur trail
will serve the residential development in
the northwest corner of Denton Tap
Road at Denton Creek. Another spur
will connect back to the Freeport
Parkway Greenwalk at Coppell Road at
Parkway Boulevard.
The trail will be on the north side of
Denton Creek from Denton Tap Road to
MacArthur Boulevard. A spur will cross
the creek and connect to the north end of
Moore Road and also to, Glen Lakes
Drive.
A spur will cross back to the south side
of Denton Creek near MacArthur
Boulevard and then proceed west and
east along the creek with the eastern run
ending at DeForest Road. This spur may
effectively become the main trail if the
main trail (described in The following
paragraph) can't be implemented.
From MacArthur Boulevard the main
trail continues east on the north side of
the creek through the Lewisville Athletic
14
Complex and then heads south through
the Dallas Gun Club in Carrollton.
This last segment will end at the Sandy
Lake Road. Greenwalk (which will in
turn provide the connection to the
Dal -Homa trail just to the east). Trail
implementation may be delayed by
problems inherent in building a trail
located in Lewisville and Carrollton
and in dealing with the Dallas Gun
Club for needed R.O.W. See the
"Denton Creek Trail/Sandy Lake Road
Greenwalk Alternate Trails" for a
backup connection to the Dal -Homa
Trail.
Denton Creek Trail/Sandy Lake
Road Greenwalk Alternate Trails -
These trail options may be needed as
an alternate connection to the
Dal -Homa Trail if the Denton Creek
Trail and Sandy Lake Road Greenwalk
fail to make the connection. The
alternate trail would start somewhere
along Hollywood Lane and proceed
generally east along the south side of
Denton Creek.
The alternate trail would cross Denton
Creek somewhere near the Texas
Utilities R.O.W. A spur connection
would then be made to the south along
this R.O.W. connecting to the north
end of the North Lake Trail.
At a specific point along the Texas
Utilities R.O.W., the trail would then
proceed east until it could join the
Dal -Homa Trail. This stretch of trail
could use either the north or south side
of Denton Creek.
Note that the on -road connection
continuing from Hollywood Lane
makes it possible for trail users to
continue northwest on Hollywood Lane
and other residential roads until they
again join the Denton Creek Trail at
DeForest Road. If access Ito Hollywood
Lane is not possible, then another way of
connecting to the residential roads will
be needed.
Although an on -road trail connection is
not optimum, residential roads are very
bicycle- and pedestrian- friendly. Such an
on -road route will allow users to make
the connection back to the real trail to
the northwest even if a real Denton
Creek Trail is not possible through the
Dallas Gun Club on the east side of
Denton Creek.
A Coppell trail on the west side of
Denton Creek is not possible because
individually owned lots were plated to
the center line of the creek and
homeowners made it clear from the
beginning of the trail planning process
that they did not want trails located on
their creek -front land.
• Belt Line Greenwalk - 'The Belt Line
Greenwalk runs parallel to Belt Line
Road from LBJ Freeway on the south to
the Cottonbelt Trail on the north. This
trail is especially important to
transportation uses since the Coppell
portion of Belt Line Road has already
been built with narrow 11 foot lanes and
widening the road 3 feet on each side to
accommodate bicyclists would probably
be prohibitively expensive.
Users of both Bike Routes 45 and 10
City of Coppell
will benefit from having this trail as an
option to using the main lanes of
BeltLine Road. (The lanes in Irving
are 12 feet wide and would lend
themselves to restriping for a wide
outside lane if Irving later decides to
pursue making their transportation
system more bicycle - friendly.)
• Freeport Parkway Greenwalk - The
Freeport Parkway Greenwalk starts at
the Coppell Middle School West and
heads north generally along Freeport
Parkway until it ends at Coppell Road
at Parkway Boulevard.
If tight R.O.W. becomes a problem
along Thweat Road, the greenwalk
could follow future thoroughfare plan
roads that go close to S.H. 121 (i.e.,
Freeport Parkway, an unnamed road
along S.H. 121 and Parkway
Boulevard).
The Freeport Parkway Greenwalk
provides the western edge of a trail
system loop of the city. The
desirability of the trail loop was
mentioned by council members and
several citizens. Freeport Parkway was
picked over Royal Lane because it is
less built out than Royal Lane and is
closer to where citizens live.
Greenwalks are generally easier to put
along a brand new road than one that
is already in. If problems crop up
along the Freeport Parkway greenwalk
route, the goal of this greenwalk can
still be achieved with a Royal Lane
routing.
15
City of Coppell
Where Freeport Parkway is already built
on the south end, it appears that the west
side of the R.O.W. will present the
fewest problems. However, there are
sections where the greenwalks will
probably need to be built to the back of
curb due to existing private berms and
landscaping.
• Grapevine Creek Trail - The Grapevine
Creek Trail starts at Freeport Parkway at
Grapevine Creek and continues generally
northeast along the creek until it ends at
the Cowboy Trail (almost at Denton Tap
Road).
One spur trail is planned connecting to
the north to Harris Road along what was
a road. The spur to Harris Road will not
allow any motorized traffic. A second
trail spur, located in Grapevine Springs
Park, connects to Park Road and is
described under "Secondary Trails in
Parks."
• North Lake Trail - The North Lake
Trail starts at the north end of Dynamo
Road in North Lake Parkin Dallas and
heads north to the Cottonbelt Trail where
it heads east a short distance before
again heading north along a Texas
Utilities Electric Company R.O.W. The
trail ends at Sandy Lake Road
Greenwalk at the Denton Creek Trail.
A short piece of the trail just south of
Belt Line Road will paralllel the Texas
Utilities Electric Company generating
station access road. This segment may
need to be a greenwalk or on -road
connection. The intersection with Belt
Line Road will be easiest to implement if
the access road is moved to the east to
16
line up with Mockingbird Lane as it
exists on the north side of Belt Line
Road.
Implementation may be delayed by
possible problems inherent in building
a trail in a Dallas park operated by
Irving and in dealing with Texas
Utilities Electric Company in regard to
using land along the North Lake Dam
and close to the generating station
access road.
• Sandy Lake Road Greenwalk - The
Sandy Lake Road Greenwalk starts just
west of the Fire Station Park (on
Coppell Road between Sandy Lake
Road and Thweat Road). The trail then
goes east through the park and
parallels Sandy Lake Road on the
south side all the way to the Dal -Homa
Trail. The Dal -Homa Trail may be in
Carrollton or Coppell. If in Carrollton,
the trail needs to cross the Elm Fork
of the Trinity River. Such a bridge
will be very expensive, but will, in
addition to reaching the Dal -Homa
Trail, also provide great non - motorized
access to McInnish Park in Carrollton.
The eastern end of the trail may be
hard to implement due to Sandy Lake
Road being a six lane road. If trail
implementation is impossible for
whatever reasons, see the "Denton
Creek Trail /Sandy Lake Road
Greenwalk Alternate Trails" for a
backup connection to the Dal -Homa
Trail.
• Town Center Trails - The Town Center
Trails form a "Y" within the Town
Center area. The south end connects to
the Sandy Lake Road Greenwalk. The
northwest end connects to Kingsridge
Drive, City Hall, and Parkway
Boulevard. The northeast end connects
the library, Town Center Elementary
School and future YMCA site to existing
pedestrian trails (which in turn connect
to Andrew Brown, Jr. Community Park
East).
Secondary Trails. Secondary trails connect
primary trails to specific destinations or
users. They are spurs off the primary trails
or on -road bike routes. Most secondary
trails are school- or developer - implemented
because they supplement the main trail
system.
Most secondary trails will be built to the
standard 12 foot width with 3 foot grass
shoulders on each side. In a few cases,
secondary trails that only serve a limited
number of users (due to their "spur"
nature), the trail width may be reduced to
10 feet with the same 3 foot grass shoulders
on each side. Any secondary trail that serves
users continuing through to other
origins/destinations should still be built with
the standard 12 foot width. The secondary
trail system includes:
Secondary Trails in Parks.
• Andrew Brown, Jr. Connmunity Park
Trails - Andrew Brown, Jr. Community
Park Trails include all trails inside the
park. Several sections of park trails are
also integral to the continuity of other
City of Coppell
trails and are thus also considered to be
"part" of other trails:
- The north/south park trails west
of Denton Tap Road are part of
the Cowboy Trail.
- The east/west park trails west of
Denton Tap Road are part of the
Denton Creek Trail.
- The north/south park trail
extending northwest from the
north end of Moore Road and
crossing Denton Creek is part of
the Denton Creek Trail.
- The east/west park trail extending
northeast from the north end of
Moore Road to Glen Lakes Drive
is part of the Denton Creek Trail.
All of the above mentioned "other"
trails will need to be built with a 12
foot width.
Specific trail routing inside the park
will be decided as trails are built.
For the purpose of this plan, it was
assumed that the routing specified in
an earlier park master plan would be
the primary guiding hand.
Some park trails have already been
built. If usage of these existing trails
increases to the point where user
safety is a concern, the city may
choose to replace existing trail
sections with wider ones meeting
AASHTO standards. Replacement
with wider trails may also be chosen
17
City of Coppell
if improved access is needed for emergency,
maintenance and law enforcement vehicles
or if the trails require excessive mainte-
nance.
Woodhurst Linear ParklThe Duck
Pond Trail - This trail consists of a •
linear north and south trail in Woodhurst
Linear Park and a circular trail around
The Duck Pond.
• Grapevine Springs Park Trails -
Grapevine Springs Park Trails are inside
the park and are also an integral part of
the Grapevine Creek Trail. The park
trails will generally run along Grapevine
Creek from the Cottonbelt Trail on the
south to Bethel Road on the north. There
will also be a spur from the southern end
of the park to the park entrance at the
south end of Park Road.
Hunterwood Park Trail - Hunterwood
Park Trail starts in the park on the north
side at the Anderson Avenue park
entrance adjacent to the Old Coppell
Estates subdivision (where car access
ends) and continues south beyond the
park limits to connect with Bethel Road.
Part of the connection to Bethel Road
will probably be along a residential road
included in a new development being
built soon.
Secondary Trails at /near Schools:
• Austin Elementary School Trail - This
trail will service people to the south of
the school and will make an existing
unofficial entry point easier to use. From
Shadowcrest (also on -road ]Bike Route
18
30), users will take the alley entrance
north, cut through the school yard
fence at a new location and then
continue north and east to the school
building.
Lee Elementary School Trail - This
trail will begin in the southeast corner
of Samuel Boulevard at Woodmoor
Drive, continue south on the east side
of Samuel, cross Samuel at the south
edge of the school, cross Moore Road
and continue west to Lodge Road.
Development/redevelopment issues
along this entire trail may make this
school trail easy or almost impossible
to implement. This trail is also part of
the mostly -0n - residential -roads Bike
Route 50.
• Mockingbird Elementary
School/Middle School West Trails -
Service to both schools is planned via
a north/south trail on the east side of
the school land. The trail begins with
an alley connection to Red Cedar Way
(also on -road Bike Route 30) on the
north and ends with a connection to
Falcon on the south.
Wilson Elementary School Trail -
This east/west trail will connect the
east edge of the school land to the
neighborhood via an existing drainage-
way at Magnolia at Charleston (also an
on -road spur Bike Route 25). The
existing sidewalk access will be
widened and then continued on further
west to connect to Coppell Road (also
on -road Bike Route 25) on the west
edge of the school land.
On- Street Bicycle Routes
By law, a bicycle is a vehicle and may
utilize any street or surface traveled by
automobiles. Standards for surface design
for the two vehicle types are quite similar,
but it is the size and travel speed differences
which make some cyclists uncomfortable in
traffic. Separating cars and bikes by using
trails seems to solve the problems, but trails
create an even wider variety of safety and
maintenance problems.
Realizing the problems of a trail system and
that it is impossible to duplicate the road
networks with trails, a grid of bicycle routes
has been created going north -south and east -
west. The goal of the Bike Route System is
to have a bike route come to within 0.5
miles of all points in the city. The on- street
bike routes create a grid system using the
streets. These streets were already bicycle -
friendly or specifically designed (or
modified) to allow easier combined travel of
cars and bicycles.
The on- street bike route system has been
numbered in the same manner as the Inter-
state Highway System; odd, numbers are
assigned to north -south routes and even
numbers are used for east -west routes.
Numbering begins in the southwestern
corner of the city and increases as the
system extends north and east. Numbering
the routes provides cyclists a means of
orientation and planning; cyclists can
determine where they are, plan where they
want to go, and communicate their travel
plans and location with others.
City of Coppell
Through a planning process, the route
locations have been determined by using the
following criteria:
• Location of points of public interest,
schools, parks, shopping centers, and
libraries. These are all typical origin
and destination points.
• Avoidance of dead ends or other
obstacles.
• Respect of current land use.
• The condition of existing thorough-
fares.
• Identification of landmarks and major
features.
• Avoidance of heavily traveled and high
speed thoroughfares where possible.
• Recognition of proposed routing of
thoroughfare additions and modifica-
tions.
The Trail System Master Plan (See Exhibit
2 - On -Road Bicycle Route System)
illustrates route locations and route numbers.
(See Appendix B also.)
Trail Connections. In order to maintain
continuity of the on -road bike route system,
some "off -road trail" segments will be
needed. Sections of bike routes along roads
already built with narrow lanes (i.e., 11 feet
wide lanes) and having enough room to add
a greenwalk (i.e., a bike trail along the
road) are listed as a "trail connection" for a
bike route even though bicyclists are
allowed full use of the road by state law.
These bike route sections were identified in
this section because many bicyclists will feel
more comfortable taking the trail due to the
lack of wide outside lanes. These trail
connections include parts of:
19
�':1i114aJ��6�J \U
l ��
� ► \( _
• BR 25 - Trail connection along Grape-
vine Creek between Southwestern
Boulevard (on the north) to and future
extension of Enterprise Drive (on the
south).
• BR 15 - Trail connection along Freeport
Parkway between Wrangler Drive (on •
south) and Bethel Road (on the north).
The road has already been built with
narrow lanes.
• BR 35 - Trail connections along:
City of Coppeu
- Denton Tap Road between Parkway
Boulevard at Denton Tap Road (on
the south) and a point just south of
Denton Creek where the on -road
wide outside lanes begin (on the
north).
BR 65 - Trail connection through
Andrew Brown, Jr. Community Park
East between Moore Road (on the
south) and Vista Ridge Drive (on the
north).
• BR 75 - Trail connection through
- Grapevine Creek between Southwest- North Lake Park and Texas Utilities
ern Boulevard (on the south) and the Electric Company generating station
south end of Harris Road (on the land between Dynamo (on the south)
north). to Belt Line Road (on the north).
- Coppell High School and Andrew
Brown, Jr. Community Park West
between Coppell High School (on the
south) and the Denton Creek Trail
(on the north).
• BR 45 - Trail connections along:
- Belt Line Road between LBJ Free-
way (on the south) and Wrangler
Drive (on the north). Belt Line
Road has already been built with
narrow lanes.
•
- A drainage/utility easement between
North Lake Drive (on the south) and
Glendale Drive (on the north).
- Denton Tap Road between Bethel
Road (on the south) and Meadow -
creek Road (on the north).
BR 10 - Trail connections along:
- Freeport Parkway between Gateway
Boulevard (on the west) and
Wrangler Drive (on the east). The
road has already been built with
narrow lanes.
- Belt Line Road between Lake Shore
Drive (on the west) and Van Zandt
(on the east). The road has already
been built with narrow lanes.
BR 20 - Trail connections along:
- Denton Tap Road between Bethel
Road (on the south) and
Meadowcreek Road (on the north).
- North Lake Trail and MacArthur
Boulevard between Bethel School
Road (on the west) and Riverchase
Drive (on the east).
21
City of Coppell
• BR 30 - Trail connections along:
- Denton Tap Road and the Lone Star
Gas pipeline easement between
Wynnpage Drive (on the west) and
Heartz Road (on the east).
The Texas Utilities Electric Com-
pany R.O.W. between Starleaf Street
extension to the Future Park (on the
west) and Bradford Drive (on the
east).
BR SO - Trail connections along:
An existing sidewalk connection
between Coppell High School (on the
west) and Kingsridge Drive (on the
east).
Town Center land between
Kingsridge Drive (on the west) and
Heartz Road (on the east).
The Lee Elementary School Trail
between Lodge Road (on the west)
and Woodmoor Drive (on the east).
This segment is addressed in more
detail under Lee Elementary School
Trail under Secondary Trails at /near
Schools.
BR 60 - Trail section along the linear
lake's edge between Parkway Boulevard
at MacArthur Boulevard (on the west)
and Gibbs Crossing (on the east). If
needed, a shorter connection could be
made via the existing alley just east of
the east end of Parkway Boulevard.
22
BR 70 - Trail connections along:
- Andrew Brown, Jr. Community
Park East between Moore Road (on
the west) to Glen Lakes Drive (on
the east).
Vacant property and an alley just
west of MacArthur Boulevard,
between Glen Lakes Drive (on the
north) and Phillips Drive (on the
south). This trail spur allows easy
non - motorized access to Andrew
Brown, Jr. Community Park East
by everyone living south and east of
Phillips Drive and MacArthur
Boulevard.
More detailed criteria for the bike routes can
be found in the standards section of this
document. In addition, detailed descriptions
of the routes are located in the Appendix.
Narrow Lane Connections. Some four- and
six -lane roads have been designated as bike
routes even though they do not (and proba-
bly never will) have wide outside lanes for
bicyclists. This scenario is found in areas
where the thoroughfares have already been
built to their ultimate width and it is not
economical to come back and widen the
road 3 feet on each side. These roads are
only used for bike routes where there is no
other way to serve the area.
In some of these cases, the bicycle - barrier
nature of the existing road is reduced where:
• the traffic is reasonable at all but rush
hour times, and/or
• a greenwalk trail parallel to the road
can be added.
Both of the above features can give lesser -
experienced and lesser - skilled riders a place
to ride in relative safety.
The cases where this plan incorporates a
"greenwalk parallel to a narrow lane four -
or six-lane thoroughfare" are. listed in the
previous section, "Trail Connections'. The
remaining narrow lane bike route cases
follow:
• BR 15 - Freeport Parkway between LBJ
Freeway (on the south) and Wrangler
Drive (on the north).
• BR 25 - Southwestern Boulevard be-
tween Grapevine Creek (on the east) and
Coppell Road (on the west).
• BR 95 - MacArthur Boulevard between
the Coppell city limit (on the south) and
Riverchase Drive (on the north).
• BR 10 - Gateway Boulevard between
LBJ Freeway (on the west) and Freeport
Parkway (on the east).
• BR 20:
- Bethel Road between the Coppell
city limit (on the west) and Denton
Tap Road (on the east).
- MacArthur Boulevard between
Riverchase Drive (on the north) and
Belt Line Road (on the south).
- Belt Line Road between MacArthur
Boulevard (on the west) and the
Coppell city limit (on the east).
City of Coppell
• BR 60 - Parkway Boulevard between
Coppell Road (on the west) and
MacArthur Boulevard (on the east).
• BR 80 - Lake Vista Drive between
MacArthur Boulevard (on the west)
and the Lewisville city limit (on the
east).
Pedestrian Sidewalks
Sidewalks are the most basic of all of the
types of transportation facilities and should
be an important component of the city's
comprehensive transportation network.
Sidewalks should be developed along both
sides of all thoroughfares within the city
including residential streets. Where
"greenwalks" are a part of the thoroughfare,
a sidewalk will not be necessary on that side
of the thoroughfare on which the greenwalk
is located.
Refer to the design standards for sidewalk
construction criteria.
23
City of Coppell
Trail System Standards
• Bicyclist Types
• Primary Corridors
• Secondary Corridors
• Access Points
• Detail Design Standards
• Hike and Bike Trails
• On- Street Connectors
• Bicycle Route System
• Bicycle Parking
24
TRAIL SYSTEM STANDARDS
This section will outline the design standards
and guidelines for proper implementation of a
trail system. This includes:
Design Development Standards that estab-
lish suitable primary and secondary trail
corridors and required access to those
corridors.
• Detailed Design Standards for bike routes,
hike and bike trails, grecnwalks and
sidewalks.
Bicyclist Types
From a design point of view, cyclists fall into
two broad categories. The first group of
cyclists ride at slower speeds. Generally, they
have less road experience and avoid automo-
bile traffic because of a fear of being hit by a
car. Slower speed riders prefer residential
streets and off -road trails.
The second group of cyclists are typically
higher speed riders. They generally have
more road experience and thus, are more
willing to ride on most streets. The higher
speed riders, like the first group, choose the
roads less traveled when they have a choice,
but will use the major roads when necessary
to get where they want to go. (See Figure 2 -
Bicyclists Types.)
By using the needs of the generally more
experienced transportation riders, standards
for roads and bicycle facilities which meet the
criteria of all cyclists were developed. The
City of Coppell
faster riders have stricter design criteria which
also meet the needs of the slower riders.
The goal for the city is to improve the
conditions for all cyclists. Using the more
experienced cyclists as the design guideline
accomplishes this objective. One can see that
the opposite is not true by picturing a high
speed rider on an off -road trail which, at least
when compared to roads, is relatively narrow
and winding. This high speed trail rider could
increase the trail's accident potential.
�a
Figure 2 - Bicyclists Types
25
City of Coppell
General Standards For
Primary Corridors yc-HOOL
The following general standards were devel-
oped to guide the creation of primary trail
corridors through private development: ,�•�
• Continuous access needs to be provided at MINA" CW11-1 !
the property lines of undeveloped property 'SHALL Loc m AoJA�tT
to maintain the integrity of the primary trail To oR 7Wxd&'N
scNs.r. tits.
corridor. (See Figure 3 - Access Points.)
c~cr A cCeSS
PoMIM To 4WOLY
\ ivrni m%a rYSrIM
MASMIL PLAN.
Figure 3 - Access Points
• To accomplish a more integrated open
space system, primary corridors need to be
located through or adjacent to neighbor-
hood parks and school sites. (See Figure
4 - School Sites and Figure 5 - Parks.)
26
Figure 4 - School Sites
PARK
rR/MARY C"10fRS "Q
SIJALL LOCATE AD✓ACMVT
TO OP TIA NON NFAQ.
Figure 5 - Parks
Existing drainage ways, as well as natural
wooded creek areas, should dictate the
location of primary corridors. (See Figure
6 - Drainage Ways and Natural Fea-
tures.)
a+w....I... n -...-
NgWA41, feAnxrs
AND ORA/JAIe' ARIAC
Figure 6 - Drainage Ways and Natural Features
Access points should be connected in a
meandering form to provide more interest
along the trail. (See Figure 7 - Fluid
Alignment and Figure 8 - Straight
Alignment.) The meandering nature of the
trail will use curves gentle enough to
comply with an AASHTO design speed of
25 miles per hour. Rationale for this
criteria is further explained in the section
that stipulates "Design Speed" under
"Detail Design Standards" Section.
City of Coppell
NG
A rMV, A(W \„F
n&I s"Ve Nld wewr
VS /A/O LON*, OVNTf,-
cucv" is rims -o.
Figure 7 - Fluid Alignment
Figure 8 - Straight Alignment
27
City of Coppell
Within the master planning of private
development, primary corridors should be
located to enable as much public access as
possible. Refer to the general standards for
access points to corridors on Page 26. (See
Figure 9 - Trail Accessibility.)
SgAU L&M? uN&W
7XAX9 AFr HOST
Amrss *=V.
Figure 9 - Trail Accessibility
Graphics. To aid an inform the users on how
to use the system, special identification
signage should be introduced. (See Figure
10, Primary Trail Graphics.)
28
Figure 10 - Primary Trail Graphics
Primary Hike and Bike Corridor Right -of-
Way. The primary trail corridor should
meander, following natural vegetation and
creek corridors to provide more interest along
the trail. The width of the trail portion right -
of -way should be an average of 40 feet wide
and a minimum of 20 feet wide. If the trail is
going through land where there are not and
will not be any adjacent uses (e.g., home-
owner association common land), the mini-
mum can be reduced to 18 feet (12 feet paved
and two Moot grass shoulders). (See Figure
11 - Right -of -Way.)
City of Coppell
yo- Pro-W. AVFK^&C
lr ure 11 - Primary Corridor Right- of-Way
Primary Corridor Elevations. A new
development which has a corridor pathway
through it, should consider k(xping the hike
and bike trail at a lower elevation than the
surrounding neighborhoods. This would allow
for screening the trail from residential
adjacencies where roads cannot be aligned to
parallel these corridors. (See Figure 12 -
Corridor Elevations and Figure 19 - Trail
Access Points.)
29
City of Coppell
Figure 12 - Corridor Elevations
General Standards for
Secondary Corridors
Secondary corridors are feeder trails to the
primary corridor. They are less frequently
used when compared to the primary corridors.
Secondary corridors should be located to
provide improved access to the primary trail.
Like the primary corridors, secondary
corridors should be placed to allow ease of
public access as much as possible within the
master planning of private development. (See
Figure 13 - Secondary Corridors.)
30
Figure 13 - Secondary Corridors
Graphics. Route direction signs need to be
provided along the secondary corridors to
show connections to the primary corridors.
(See Figure 14 - Signs.)
Figure 14 - Sigmv
City of Coppell
Secondary Hike and Bike Corridor Right -
of -Way. Secondary trail corridor right -of-
way should be an average of 30 feet wide with
a minimum of 20 feet (as for primary trails).
(See Figure 15 - Corridor Widths.)
Secondary Corridor Elevation. The elevation
of secondary pathways should follow the
criteria of the primary pathways. Where
possible, the trail should be at a lower
elevation than the surrounding residential
properties to allow for a buffer zone from the
trail. (See Figure 12 - Corridor Elevation.)
DO- R O. W. AVFAAOE
Figure 15 - Secondary Corridor Right -of -Way
31
City of Coppell
General Standards for
Access Points To
Corridors
Location. Access points should be located
along the frontage of the corridors and at even
intervals. Attention must be given to assist in
providing safe and convenient access to the
corridors. This can be accomplished by
careful layout of developments so that there is
an appropriate mix of public and private
exposure to the corridor.
Quantity. The quantity of access points can
be determined by one of two ways: providing
a minimum of one access point per residential
subdivision or commercial development or
supplying an access point every 750 linear feet
of corridor frontage, whichever is greater.
(See Figures 16 to 20 - Trail Access Points.)
i= XAMPLF— : ".......
2100 LF FRONTAC* = 2.8 oR 3 Mczzss
760 W- POINTS RXW
Figure 16 - Trail Access Points
32
Suggested Examples of Access Point Types:
1. Access Point - Parallel Drainage Corridors at
Major Streets
lizzid
2. Access Point - End of Cul -DeSac (2 Lots)
r
�1
10T
LOT
ACCESS CORRIDOR go
55'X /5J' - ?AV ",-r X 2
1.07 49APM
= /D, 6W - /4,AV aF IhNO
ATERSECTIpV
SI GNAOE ,Wp VIAL
PAYGMCi{/T
Figure 18 - Access Point.
LOT
City of Coppell
3. Access Point - Perpendicular to Major Streets. Detail Design Standards
ACS mi NT
A f Hike and Bike Trail
w
w This section of this report documents con-
struction guidelines and issues to consider
ti S iNTeR''ecnoN related to the implementation of the trail
N SIUN1u'a� & P^VEI.IETIT
nn F_KIMers. system. The issues discussed here and the
recommendations presented should be re-
viewed carefully as each specific project is
designed and constructed to ensure that a safe,
well constructed facility is achieved.
o s
I l.�
t
Figure 19 - Access Paint
4. Access Point - End of Cud- De-&ic (1 Lot)
49" AVMtAGrr WroTH
_J
Z"_" /W _ ZAU' ACT I _W%%H
= 525o SF -AW SP 6 -I.MV.
Figure 20 - Access Point
The American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) has
published nationally accepted standards for the
design and construction of trails. With a few
modifications, the city should follow these
design standards. As with any set of design
standards, there will be cases where they
cannot be met. In such cases, design excep-
tions will be necessary in order to implement
the plan. Signing is typically used to notify
trail users where these exceptions are located.
(See Figure 21 - Development Guidelines.)
Guide for the Development
of Bicycle Facilities
c• u
...W,
Figure 21 - Development Guidelines
33
.M.grT.�n..-OYY
Figure 21 - Development Guidelines
33
City of Coppell
Trail Structure. The primary and secondary
hike and bike trails should be a minimum of
12 feet in width. (Trails in greenwalks
parallel to roadways with wide outside lanes
should be 10 feet in width.) The trail thick-
ness should be 5 inches of reinforced con-
crete with a non -skid finish. The concrete
should be placed on a compacted stabilized
base which should extend into the grass
shoulders on either side. The 3 foot wide
shoulders on each side of the trail are primar-
ily for joggers and to ensure proper sight
distances to help avoid crashes. The shoul-
ders also serve as a space for bicyclists to use
when they are avoiding an accident. The
shoulders shall be flush with the trail to help
eliminate user safety hazards. The shoulders
are mowed to keep them in a useful state.
(See Figure 22 - Hike and Bike Trails.)
aeaw,w awwPme,
AN/6N awcmre.
a*-W STOWUZ4774V
i IV /•2, 3
fteEIA" TJWL _T4_ WS
��R Sweri�
Figure 22 - Hike and Bike Traits
Where the trails run parallel with a linear
obstacle, such as a street or drainage ditch, a
minimum separation of 5 feet should be placed
between the trail's hard edge and the obstacle.
All underpasses and bridges should have a full
trail width of 18 feet (or 16 feet for green-
34
walks along roads with wide outside lanes),
existing conditions permitting.
Warning devices must be used where the
combined trail and shoulder cannot be 18 feet
in width (or 16 feet for greenwalks along
roads with wide outside lanes). Reference the
MUTCD (Manual of Uniform Traffic Control
Devices) for signage to use where these
exceptions occur.
Design Speed. A design speed of 25 miles
per hour will provide a safe layout for the
hike and bike trails. Designing for a 25 mph
speed does not mean that users must or even
can ride the trail at that speed. Very few
cyclists can ride at 20 mph, much less at 25
mph. Even though almost no one can ride at
20 or 25 mph, there are, however, significant
reasons for using the 25 mph figure:
• the curves along the trail will be more
gentle,
• the sight distances will be increased, and
• hazardous intersections, maneuvering
difficulties, and steep slopes will be
reduced.
The above effects reduce trail accidents and
increase user security (by giving criminals
fewer places to hide).
The following information sets forth the
minimum standards for curve radii, vertical
curves (hills), lateral clearances on horizontal
curves, and stopping sight distances.
Minimum Curve Radii. The minimum design
radius of curvature can be established by the
following formula:
R = V2
15 (e +f)
where:
R = Minimum radius of curvature (feet)
V = Design Speed (mph)
e = Rate of super elevation (cross slope)
f = Coefficient of friction (from AASHTO)
Designing for a speed of 25 mph at a cross
slope of 2%:
R = 252
15(.02 + 0.25)
R = 625
15(.27)
R = 625
4.05
R = 155 ft.
City of Coppell
Vertical Curves. A path should be designed
with adequate stopping sight distances in
mind. The chart from AASHTO shows the
minimum length of vertical curve necessary to
provide minimum stopping sight distance at
various speeds on the crests of vertical curves
(e.g. hills). (See Figure 23 - Minimurn
Length of Vertical Curves.)
S =Stopping Sight Distance (ft.)
A = Algebraic Difference In Grade
h1 = Eye Height of Bicyclist (4.5 Feet)
h2= Height of Object (0 Feet)
L = Ufnimum- Vertical Curve Length (ft.)
500
400
C
•
J
300
u
i
> 200
z
3
100
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Algebraic OlfferMMC• In Grade Ul
Figure 23 - Minimum Length of Vertical Curves
35
i
M1y
_
C
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Algebraic OlfferMMC• In Grade Ul
Figure 23 - Minimum Length of Vertical Curves
35
City of Coppell
Lateral Clearances. Figure 24 - Minimal
Lateral Clearance on Horizontal Curves is
from the 1991 AASHTO Bicycle Guidelines.
Either the formula or the graph can be used to
obtain the lateral clearance needed to maintain
the desired sight distance in a horizontal
curve.
Sight distance (S) measured along this line
Liree of Slght�
Line of sight Is 2.0' above rL Inside
tone at point of obstruction.
0
40
e
fi 30
i
20
C; 10
0
o S
• S = Sight distance In feet.
,R - Radius of I. Inside lane In feet.
m : Distance from 4- Inside lone In feet.
Y = Design speed for S In mph
Angie is expressed In degrees
m = R
I ers (28.6551 \ •R J
[COS -' (:LR S 2 8.65 R
Formula applies only When S Is
edualto or less than length of curve.
0 0 100 200 300
J
Sight Distance (S) - Feet w
(Metric Conversions 1 Ft. • 0.3 m.)
Lateral clearances on horizontal curves should be calculated based on the
sum of the stopping sight distances for bicyclists travelling In opposite
directions around the curve. See text for odditlonoldiscusslon.
Figure 24 - Minimum Lateral Clearances on Horizontal Curves (from 1991 AASHTO Bicycle Guidelines)
36
Stopping Sight Distances. Based on slope and
speed, Figure 25 - Minimum Stopping Sight
Distances gives the minimum standard
stopping sight distances. The graph indicates
ascending as well as descending minimum
stopping distances.
Bicyclists have a tendency to ride near the
center of the path as well as side -by -side.
Because of these reasons and seriousness of
head -on collisions, lateral clearances on
horizontal curves should be calculated as the
sum of the stopping distance for bicyclists
traveling in both directions. If this is not
possible, then a combination of alternatives
can be used, for example, widening the path
through the curve, placement of warning
signs, or installing a yellow solid center
stripe.
WIN
q
p
u
5
0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 750 400
minlmun Stopping Distance - Ft.
Solid = Descending
Dash = Ascending
Figure 25 - Minimum Stopping Sight Distances
City of Coppell
Trail Marking. There are several ways to
mark the hike and bike trail. A solid stripe
should be used to indicate a no- passing zone
on steep hills, intersections and tight curves.
A dashed yellow stripe down the center should
indicate 2 -way traffic. The paint used in
marking the trail should be non -skid and
reflective for night -time riding visibility. A
standard used by the Texas Department of
Transportation is glass beads sprinkled on wet
paint as it is applied. This makes the paint
reflective and gives it a sandpaper -like non-
slip surface. White stripes at the edges of the
trail are not recommended because they have
a tendency to narrow the usable trail space.
Reflectorized tiles are also not recommended
due to the fact that they create a hazard by
acting as miniature speed bumps and are
slippery when wet. (See Figure 26 - Trail
Markings.)
-we PAAH7 STR/Pt
/�D/GTES
ZaJ.
a V
Figure 26 - Trail Markings
Slopes. Trails should have a cross -slope of 2
37
UNA
Evil
0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 750 400
minlmun Stopping Distance - Ft.
Solid = Descending
Dash = Ascending
Figure 25 - Minimum Stopping Sight Distances
City of Coppell
Trail Marking. There are several ways to
mark the hike and bike trail. A solid stripe
should be used to indicate a no- passing zone
on steep hills, intersections and tight curves.
A dashed yellow stripe down the center should
indicate 2 -way traffic. The paint used in
marking the trail should be non -skid and
reflective for night -time riding visibility. A
standard used by the Texas Department of
Transportation is glass beads sprinkled on wet
paint as it is applied. This makes the paint
reflective and gives it a sandpaper -like non-
slip surface. White stripes at the edges of the
trail are not recommended because they have
a tendency to narrow the usable trail space.
Reflectorized tiles are also not recommended
due to the fact that they create a hazard by
acting as miniature speed bumps and are
slippery when wet. (See Figure 26 - Trail
Markings.)
-we PAAH7 STR/Pt
/�D/GTES
ZaJ.
a V
Figure 26 - Trail Markings
Slopes. Trails should have a cross -slope of 2
37
City of Coppell
Slopes. Trails should have a cross -slope of 2
percent. Greater cross - slopes make it difficult
for bicyclists and wheel chair users to
maneuver on the trail. Smaller cross - slopes
hinder trail drainage. (See Figure 27 - Trail
Slopes.)
The longitudinal slope on a trail should not be
greater than 5 percent, especially on long
inclines. When a higher design speed is used
and additional trail width is provided, grades
greater than 5 percent and running less than
500 feet are acceptable. Slopes greater than 5
percent are undesirable because the ascents are
difficult to climb (causing some bicyclists to
wobble left and right) and the descents cause
some bicyclists to exceed the speed they are
capable of handling.
Figure 27 - Trail Slopes
Drainage. To minimize storm water run -off
from flowing across the trail, drainage swales
can be placed on the higher side. Swales are
used where the sheet flow drainage across the
trail surface might be great enough to increase
trail maintenance. Using swales in this
situation will also require culverts that are
designed to handle the water flow, are safe
(relative to the trail users), and have low
maintenance.
ul
Water fountains, faucets, and other water
sources should be located on the downhill side
of the trail. (See Figure 28 - Trail Drain-
age.) Placing these water sources on the
downhill side of the trail will help eliminate
water flow across the trail which could create
a slipping hazard. The hazard develops in the
case where uphill drains become blocked and
a regular water overflow results in a wet trail
surface. A constantly wet trail surface is
conducive to algae growth. (See Figure 29 -
Drainage Flow Problem.)
Figure 28 - Trail Drainage
Figure 29 - Drainage Flow Problem
Water Fountains. Water fountains should
occur every 0.5 mile for trails in parks. The
water fountains should be freeze -proof with a
top spigot and a lower faucet for water bottles
and animals. The lower faucet needs to be
spring - loaded to ensure that it shuts off after .�
use. (See Figure 30 - Water ]Fountains.)
Lower bkucet
Upper spigot
Figure 30 - Water Fowitains
Obstacle -Free Area. To provide a safer trail,
an obstacle -free area should be maintained.
This zone shall have no signs, trees or light
fixtures located within it. (See Figure 31 -
Obstacle- Free Area.) Any existing condition
(e.g., an overpass) within the 10 foot vertical
clear space must be signed as to its height.
City of Coppell
Typically, in any place where people will
gather (e.g., parking lots, trail maps, bike
parking areas, water fountains) should be set
back from the trail edge 25 or more feet.
�b
I 065TAGLE
e' -o•
Figure 31 - Obstade -Free Area
Lighting. Lighting the hike and bike trail is
important and should be provided at all at-
grade street crossings and considered where
night -time use is expected. The horizontal
illumination levels should maintain an average
between 0.5 and 2 foot candles. Where
special security concerns exist (e.g., tunnels,
underpasses), a higher illumination is recom-
mended. The light pole and fixture should be
in scale with bicyclists and joggers except at
at -grade street crossings. Full -sized poles and
fixtures are used at street crossings. (See
Figure 32 - Lighting..)
39
City of Coppell
5T Be fi! WO1,6r1W 7Xi1/4
Figure 32 - Lighting
Railings. Railings for bridges, steep drop -
offs, and separation from thoroughfare traffic
should be a minimum of 4.5 feet in height and
have a smooth "rub rail" attached to it. The
rub rail should be of 2 inch x 6 inch rectangu-
lar tubing (12 gauge steel) placed so the
railing's center is 3.5 feet above the surface.
The 6 inch rub railing vertical dimensions is
a minimum. Crain -link fencing is not
recommended. (See Figure 33 - Rub Rail.)
40
r4a4w RNL
Figure 33 - Rub Rail
Signage. Adequate Sgnage is critical on hike
and bike trails to communicate to trail users
and motorists the appropriate regulatory
messages and to warn of potential conflicts.
There are five basic types of sign groups:
• warning signs
• directional markers
• information signs
• regulatory signs
• identification markers
Warning Signs. These signs alert trail users
of a safety threat such as sharp curves,
approaching intersections, or steep drop -offs.
Typically, these signs are yellow and
diamond - shaped with black lettering. (See
Figure 34 - Warning Signs.)
v r
PAVEMENT
NARROWS
NARROW
BRIDGE
Figure 34 - Warning Signs
City of Coppell
Directional Markers. Directional markers use
arrows or wording to indicate which direction
to travel. These signs are important when
multiple trails come together. (See Figure 35
- Directional Signs.)
Figure 35 - Directional Signs
Information Signs. These signs can be in any
form or style and typically provide the trail
user with useful or important information.
(See Figure 36 - Information Signs.)
Figure 36 - Information Signs
41
DENTON CREEK TRAIL
Length: 4.4 Miles
\4 MAP
Figure 36 - Information Signs
41
City of Coppell
Regulatory Signs. These signs are usually
white and rectangular with black lettering.
Regulatory signs give instructions on trail use
and etiquette. (See Figure 371 - Regulatory
Signs.)
TWO
WAY
RAFF
SLOWER
TRAFFIC
KEEP
RIGHT
Figure 37 - Regulatory Signs
Identification Markers. These signs identify
trails and streets that cross the trails. All
intersections and street crossings should have
a sign identifying the street for trail users and
a sign identifying the trail for road users.
Overhead name blades should be located on
underpasses and should include the street
name and block number. Trail maps and the
name of the trail should be located at the
beginning and end of each trail. Mile markers
should be located every 0.25 miles. The
identification markers are important to trail
users, maintenance forces„ police, and
emergency personnel. (See Figure 38 -
Identification Markers.)
42
DENTON
_CREEK
TRAIL
OVERLOOK
171
Figure 38 - Identification Markers
Mow Pads. To help minimize trimming
during the mowing season, mow pads should
be placed around all signage, furniture and
water fountains. The pads should be designed
so that a tractor can easily mow around these
objects without hitting them. mow pads shall
be poured -in -place, reinforced concrete with a
broom or non -skid finish. (See figure 39 -
Mow Pads.)
Figure 39 - Mow Pads
Intersections. In hike and bilke trail design,
intersections with roadways are very impor-
tant. When intersections occur at- grade, some
type of traffic control needs to be used
(signal, stop sign, yield sign, etc.) and done in
accordance with the Manual of Uniform
Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). The
location of the crossing should be away from
the influence of street intersections (e.g., a
mid -block crossing is best when crossing a
low traffic road). Where trail crossings at
street intersections are best used (e.g., when
crossing busy streets), the train crossing needs
to be located at the pedestrian crosswalk.
-All
�- Iigrd standard
Special marking car
paving with centerlllne
marker or stripe
City of Coppell
Mid -Block Crossings. The mid -block crossing
is the preferred method of crossing a low -
traffic street at- grade. User safety is a major
concern when there are at -grade intersections.
For this reason, a very detailed design
crossing must be done. (See Figure 40 -
Mid -Block Crossings - Possible Treatment.)
• Where medians are in use and the trail
crosses the street at- grade, the median
islands on trail crossings need to be wide
enough for street sweepers to clean the
debris that will collect on the depressed
median island.
Speed taws; raise makers, painted
pavement, and unit pavers can be
used to wam and slow approaching
traffic.
Hgure 40 - Mid -Block Crossing - Possible Treatment
43
City of Coppell
• A double head street light in the median or
two single head fixtures on each side of the
street are needed on a six -laune street with a
mid -block trail crossing.
• The sidewalk users will have WATCH
FOR BIKES signs of pedestrian scale.
• The trail users will have a stop bar painted
at the extended outside sidewalk line. If
there is no sidewalk, the stop bar is placed
at the extended curb line.
• The bollards are intentionally located inside
the trail obstacle -free area to keep motor
traffic off the hike and bike trail.
• The bollards are placed fair enough from
the road that they will not make the "road
crossing maneuver" more complicated for
trail users.
• The trail crossing can also be made into a
road table. In other words, the road rises
to meet the trail rather than the trail
dropping to meet the road.
• The bollards are painted with a bright
reflective paint for day and night visibility.
The bollard in the center should be remov-
able to allow for maintenance and emer-
gency access to the trail, but be locked in
place to prevent unauthorized vehicles from
entering the trail. The pavement is marked
as shown in Figure 41 - Bollard Post
Striping. (Also see Figure 40 - Mid
Block Crossings - Possible! Treatment.)
• Signs are always placed outside of the
"obstacle -free area ". Waning signs (e.g.
STOP AHEAD) are used to alert hike
44
(RF�toVi{BL�)
Figure 41- Bollard Post Striping
UPE
and bike trail users that they are approach-
ing a street intersection.
• Road tables, along with bike crossing signs,
let motorists know there is a hike and bike
trail crossing. Extending the full width of
the street, road tables are used to alert and
slow the motorists at the trail crossing.
Road tables are either painted or made of
special paving material. The section
drawing in Figure 42 - Road Table shows
a rise of 3 inches over 6 feet and then a
drop back to grade over the next 6 feet.
Signage for the road table is placed on both
sides of the street for each road table.
Along with this sign, a bike crossing sign
is placed which includes the name of the
trail being crossed.
Trail Conflicts At A Four -Way Intersection.
Bicycle trail users need to watch for conflicts
with vehicles from all four directions. The
direction of greatest concern changes with the
location from which the bicyclist approaches.
Although the trail users will have a stop sign,
the concerns apply to cyclists starting from a
stop, as well as those who ignore the stop
sign. (See Figure 43 - Conflicts At a Four -
Way Intersection.)
N
I
A
R-d Abl. a
� •A � I r
_m ,Q
b
92
1.37
133
235
2.48
2.57
2.31
2.92
2.33
3.00
A' ip
c
s
*r bipw , r—Gtl�
Irir —a.b
Tr
GowSaWon AW
Figure 42 - Road Table
Bicyclist "A" is at the greatest risk of
having an accident with motorist number
"1 ". Motorist number "1" is concerned
with finding an opening large enough to get
through and past car "5." He does not look
for (or expect) a bicyclist to be crossing the
side street at 5 to 15 mph. :Bicyclist "A"
does not expect to have car "I" turning left
from his right (an analogy would be a
motorist turning left from the right lane).
Trail user "B" is at greatest danger with car
number 112." Motorist number "2" is
concerned with cars "4" and "1." When
motorist number "2" comes to a rolling stop
or a quick right -on -red and completes his
right turn, bicyclist "B" is crossing the road
at 5 to 15 mph. This is, from the bicyclist's
view, like a motorist turning right from the
'left-most lane. It does not happen often and
it is a big surprise when it does.
Motorist number "3" will impact both trail
users "A" and "B" by stopping within the
trail space.
City of Coppell
The concerns presented above will be
addressed by the Standard Treatments for
Signalized and Non - Signalized Intersections.
(See Figure 44 - Non - Signalized Intersec-
tion and Figure 45 - Signalized Intersec-
tion.)
r
0
t - 1, M-IMMI,
Figure 43 - Conflicts at a Four -Way Intersection
45
City of Coppell
Standard Treatment for Non- Signalized
Intersections. The trail should cross this
type of intersection in the pedestrian cross-
walk (which is between the extended curb
line and the stop bar).
Signs are posted to alert cyclists to possible
motorists in their blind spots; e.g., TURN-
ING TRAFFIC TO RIGHT (on the left side)
and TURNING TRAFFIC TO LEFT (on the
right side) of the figure. These kinds of
conflicts are the most dangerous to the
cyclist crossing this type of intersection.
(See Figure 44 - Non - Signalized Intersec-
tions - Possible Treatment.)
BIKE CROSSING signs are placed on all
motor vehicle approach directions. Also on
this sign is the name of the trail that crosses
the street. Where the motorist is likely to
stop in the bike trail, a STOP HERE sign is
placed to remind the motorists of the trail.
Standard Treatments for Signalized Intersec-
tion. Cyclists crossing at this type of
intersection are in the most danger from the
motorists within their blind ;spot. Regula-
tory signs are used to alert bicyclists of the
possibility of motorists within this zone.
These signs read TURNING TRAFFIC TO
RIGHT and TURNING TRAFFIC TO
LEFT.
Next to the motor vehicle stop bar, signs are
placed that read STOP HERE ON RED to
alert motorists not to stop in the bike trail
crossing. These replace the STOP HERE
signs used in the non-signalized intersec-
tions.
As the trail approaches an intersection,
pedestrian push buttons are mounted on the
46
traffic light standard on the right side of the
trail. Detector loops are also placed in the
right side of trail pavement and are marked
with a painted bicyclist logo. The trail
buttons and loops will reduce the intersec-
tion light timing changes to a minimum by
only being "active" when the trail is in use.
Since trail traffic is lower than road traffic,
the decision to signalize or not is almost
always decided by the road traffic. Signal
timing will need to be adjusted to allow
bicyclists to cross the street based on a start
up time of 2.5 seconds and a traveling speed
of 10 mph. An all-red interval may be
required. (See Figure 45 - Signalized
Intersection - Possible Treatment.)
City of Connell
lvwm Yale W 10 mpr1 +
2.5 see.) M aB red interval
may be required.
F%M 45 -- Signalized Intersection - Possible Treat
47
City of Coppell
Freeway Intersections. A grade separation is
the only solution for freeway crossings. The
most realistic opportunity for crossing the
freeways are by using existing underpasses
(See Figure 46 - Freeway Underpass) or
bridges.
The ultimate (and most expensive) solution is
to construct a tunnel or bridge dedicated to
getting the trail across the freeway. It is
usually more economical to cross the freeway
as part of an extra wide road bridge (designed
and built from the start with the extra width
for the trail on one side).
TK/lIL s T K ET
Figure 46 - Freeway Underpass
Sight Triangles. It is important to eliminate
blind spots at intersections where multi -use
Paths intersect with streets. Clear zone sight
line triangles must be defined to eliminate
blind spots. Landscape improvements
designees within this zone must be below 2.5
feet and above 9 feet in height to provide
unobstructed cross - visibility. Additional
intersection visibility requirements are given
in the Coppell Subdivision Ordinance starting
on page 78.
48
Key Trail Spots. Trail map markers, rest
stops, overlooks, and creek scenic areas are
all examples of trail points of interest. These
points should be integrated into the trail.
Trail maps and guides give users directions.
(See Figure 47 - Trail Maps.)
Saw cut all joints 0.25 inches wide to help
eliminate hazards to skaters. Different
materials and forms can be used on special
areas such as overlooks and rest stops,
depending on its function and location. (See
Figure 48 - Trail Jointing and Figure 49 -
Special Overlooks.)
PLAN Steps Up
Trail t" -'25'-
i
TraII Map .
SECTION
Figure 47 - Trail Maps
a
Ej
Standard Jointino
Troweled Edge
Paint Line
Figure 48 - Trail Jointing
City of Coppell
Graduated
Jointing
150 it (same on other side) L
Figure 49 - Special Overlooks
40
49
Ciry of Coppell
Alternative Trails. Special historical and
visual points of interest along 'the trail should
have spin -off trails for pedestrians and
joggers. Cyclists should have parking for
bicycles. Spin -off trails should include
appropriate signage to discourage bicycle use
on them. (See Figure 50 - Spin -Off Trails.)
Kiosks. Information bulletin boards or kiosks
should be located near parking areas, water
fountains, and restrooms where people have a
reason to stop. Locating them at the begin-
ning or end of the trail and adjacent to the
parking areas are effective because people are
stretching or unloading bicycles. These
locations are also good for placing the Trail
Guidelines (which should be brief and clearly
Posted). Informed trail users are more likely
to be courteous and behave safely on multi-use
trails. (See Figure 51 - Kiosks,)
Figure 50 - Spin -Off Trails
50
Figure 51 - Kiosks
Water Crossings. Single span bridges are a
better solution than low water crossings.
High maintenance costs and trail closures are
associated with low water crossings. The trail
will have to be closed during periods of high
water and remain closed until the mud and
branches are cleared away. The time needed
for post -rain cleanup will reduce the trail's
availability. There is also a safety problem
when frequently wet spots, like low water
crossings, develop a slippery, algae growth.
On- Street Connectors
On -street connectors are trail connections
utilizing low- traffic residential streets. on_
street connectors can be used where drainage
corridors and other trail corridors cannot
naturally connect. Proper signage and trail
markings are very important because these
connectors are not dedicated to trail use.
They are shared with automobile traffic. A
hail identification sign should be placed every
time the "on- street" trail turns or changes
direction to show trail users where to go.
Bicycle Route System
Providing a complete off -road trail transporta_
tion system would be expensive to build and
maintain. Such a system would
require the
Complete duplication of the road network - a
cost prohibitive proposition.
Since cyclists have the same trip origin and
destination needs as motorists, a rrnajor focus
of the city's bicycle facility efforts is directed
toward the existing and future road network.
Wide outside lanes of 14 feet are the preferred
bicycle accommodation on urban and/or
curbed roads. To lower the costs of wide
outside lanes, this master plan recommends
restriPing the multi-lane roads such that the
inside lanes are 11 feet wide instead of the
current 12 feet (this technique is suggested in
the 1991 AASHTO Guidelines for the
Development of Bicycle Facilities).
All four - and six-lane urban roads;, curbed
roads and roads with parking to the right of
City of Coppell
the travel lane should have wide outside lanes
as specified in Append A.
Where a bicycle - friendly wide outside lane
approaches and intersecting street, the wide
lane is always carried through the intersection
as a part of the right -most straight - through
lane.
Right - and left -turn pockets are only widened
to include a wide lane where a large volume
of bicycle traffic " expected (e.g., a turn lane
leading to a school or park). Where a double
lane turn pocket is provided, the right -most
one is the lane to widen.
Serge. Route identification signs are the
The fo g
gnagn type for on- street bike routes.
criteria should be used to
develop these signs:
• The bike route number and current direc-
tion of travel is shown on a bike route sign
with a single letter suffix. For example,
"ION" would be used for bike route "10"
when heading north. The bike route letters
and numbers should be 5 inches tall so they
can be read by cyclists traveling at 15 to 20
mph. (See ]Figure 52 - Route Sifgnage.)
• The sign is 18 inches wide and 24 inches
tall. The background is a single color such
as royal blue. The white areas are reflec-
torized.
• To help minimize the chance of vandalism
or damage to the sign, it is always oriented
vertically.
51
City of Coppell
The signs are always placed on the right
side of the road. If a sign is placed on the
left side of the road due to sight line
considerations, a duplicate sign is still
placed on the right side because that is
where vehicle operators expect them to be.
• Bike route signs are placed wherever bike
routes cross each other and /or major
thoroughfares. Signs are also located at the
beginning and end of each route. At bike
route ends the words "BEGIN" and "END"
are used, as appropriate, instead of direc-
tional arrows.
• To confirm that the bicyclist is still on the
bike route, signs are provided every 0.5 to
1 mile.
• Missing signs along the bike route should
be replaced as soon as possible because
missing signs make the :routes unusable.
Once a bicyclist is off the route, there is no
way to get back on the mute.
• Advance warning of a left turn option is
given before the turn on four- and six-lane
roads because cyclists need time to safely
change lanes when they intend to turn left.
• Large arrows (5 inches wide and as tall as
needed) are used to show the direction of
the bike route the cyclist is currently using.
Slightly smaller arrows can be used to
show the directions of travel for a bicycle
route crossing the current bike route.
52
x iNa
F%PM 52 - Roue she
Assurance Stickers. "Assurance" stickers
should be placed on stop and speed limit sign
poles that are along bike routes where the
route goes straight and a bike mute sign is not
already planned. The top of the stickers are
placed approximately 6 inches below the
bottom edge of the stop or speed limit sign.
"Assurance" stickers are 3 by 4 inches and are
reflectorized. The stickers give assurance to
the bike route users that they are still on the
right route without adding to sign clutter. As
an added benefit, they cost almost nothing.
Since bike route signs are used at every bike
route turn, assurance stickers are only used
where the route goes straight. (See Figure 53
- Bicycle Route Assurance Sticker.)
a
Oil
Figure 53 - Bicycle Route Assurance Sticker
Drainage and Manhole :Requirements.
Where drainage conditions occur, recessed
curb inlets are preferred over drain grates. If
grates must be used, they must be bicycle - and
wheelchair -safe with openings no wider than
1 by 2 inches.
Grates and manhole covers should be flush
with the surface (and be maintained in a flush
state when the roadway is resurfaced).
After completion of any road work (e.g.,
utility cuts or street repairs), the roadway
surface should be returned to a smooth, flush
condition.
City of Coppell
Railroad Crossings
A smooth surface is also important at railroad
crossings. The use of rubber mat crossing
materials in new installations and provision of
road flare -outs at dangerous angled railroad
crossings are also important. Extra wide
spots in the road at railroad crossings can
allow a cyclist to swing to the right or left as
needed to cross the tracks at nearly a right
angle. (See Figure 54 - Acute Angle
Bikeway/Railroad Crossing and Figure 55 -
Obtuse Angle Bikeway /Railroad Crossing.)
Flangeway fillers should be used where train
speeds are low and perpendicular crossings
cannot be achieved through other techniques.
The gap between the road edge and track bed
edge should be repaired or filled as needed to
compensate for uneven settling rates.
i Large radii
'Q preferred
1
Direction of
bike travel
1 Widen to permit
I ight angle
crossing.
I
1 railroad tracks
Figure 54 - Acute Angle Bikeway/Railroad
Crossing
53
City of Coppell
railroad tracks
'4 � Large radii
preferred
. 1 .
Direction of
bike travel
I Widen to permit
right angle
crossing.
I
Figure 55 - Obtuse Angle Bikeway/Railroad
Crossing
Detector Loops. Existing traffic detector
loops should have their sensitivity adjusted to
a level high enough to detect bicycle traffic.
Detector loop replacement should be sched-
uled where unacceptable cross -lane detection
results from increasing the sensitivity.
Bicycle logos should mark the loop detector's
"sweet spot" if the entire lane isn't sensitive
enough to detect a bicycle.
Pedestrian -style push buttons are not adequate
for on -road bicyclists use as they require the
bicyclists to leave and then re -enter the travel
lanes. Quadruple, diamond and power head
designs are the best to reliably detect bicycles.
(See Figure 56 - Detector Loops.)
54
acrcLic- [r#o
,Y*Vr3 me �siwAq VW.
cMIrecrac L04V ,ro
:*a eor Ste►*
Figure 56 - Detector Loops
Bicycle Parking
Lack of convenient and securable bicycle
parking at schools, employment, shopping,
cultural facilities, etc., has been shown to be
one of the greatest impediments to increased
bicycle use. Bicycles that are unsecured or
improperly secured are an invitation to thieves
who know how easily bikes can be converted
into cash. It has been estimated that millions
of bicycles are stolen each year - this makes
bikes the most frequently stolen item in the
United States. To encourage more people to
use their bicycles as an alternative to automo-
biles, provisions must be made for secure
bicycle parking.
The ordinance detailing off - street parking
requirements needs to be changed to include
bicycle parking requirements for both long -
and short-term users. Long -term bike parking
is typically used by employees and transit
commuters, while short-term bike parking is
mostly for customers and clients.
be developed that explains the ordinance
requirements and provides detailed guidelines
for the development for bike parking facilities.
The Bicycle Parking Manual will work hand -
in -hand with zoning ordinances and off -street
parking requirements and should detail the
following:
Long -term and short-term bicycle parking
devices, e.g., racks, lockers, hitching
posts, etc. (See Figure 57 - Bicycle
Parking Devices.)
V^M ES T
Figure 57 - Bicycle Parkdng Devices
City of Coppell
Placement and design of bike parking
signage. (See Figure 58 - Bicycle Parking
Signage.)
• Standards for bike parking construction and
access.
Figure 58 - Bicycle Parking Signage
Sidewalks
Sidewalks should be a minimum of 5 feet in
1 `width and constructed of reinforced concrete
in accordance with the standards set forth in
the city's subdivision ordinance.
55
City of Coppell
Master Plan Implementation
• Prioritization
• Implementation Components
Components
Check List
• Funding Sources
Local Funding
Upper Trinity River Feasibility Study
Federal Assistance
ISM Enhancement Funds
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvements
Scenic Byways Program
Recreational Trail Fund
National Highway System
• Mechanisms To Encourage Trail System Development
Land Acquisition
Mandatory Dedication
Taxation
Land Donations
- Joint Development Techniques
Preservation of the Trail System Corridor Resource
Bicycle
• Promotion of Bicycling as Alternative Transportation
Bicycle Parking
Bicycle Use ,Education Program
• Security Concerns Regarding Multi -Use Paths
Adjacent Land Owner Concerns & Trail User Concerns
Trail User Security Concerns
56
MASTER PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
An important component of the Trail System
Master Plan is an implementation plan which
will aid in an orderly and deliberate develop-
ment of the system. The final location, design
and funding of the facilities called for in this
plan will require Council approval. This
implementation plan consists of:
• prioritization of system elements,
• recommended components needed to
implement the plan,
• identification of funding sources,
• identification of mechanisms to encourage
trail system development,
• steps that should be taken to preserve the
trail system corridor resource, and
• actions to be taken to promote bicycling
as an alternative transportation mode.
Prioritization
Before the individual elements of the system
can be "bundled" together into system
components and targeted for implementation,
a prioritization must be developed for these
elements. Such priorities are based on need,
availability of resources, public input, and
cost. The Trail System Master Plan prioritiz-
ation was developed using the following
priority considerations:
Initial trails and bike route development
should be on current park land, along
City of Coppell
current roads, or on land that is already
available to the city. This will avoid a
lengthy land acquisition processes. Initial
development should also provide a connection
to as many community facilities as possible,
be centrally located, and be very visible to the
citizens.
Trails within the Denton Creek Corridor
should be the next components added to
the system because of their importance to
the satisfying the growing recreational
demand of the citizens of Coppell. This
will also create the spine for the future
trail spurs which private development will
be encouraged to implement.
The greenwalks that are along thorough-
fares already built to final approved
cross - sections, may require additional
R.O.W. and/or easements. Greenwalks
in this category need to be coordinated
with new development and/or existing
uses. Even though a trail may not be
built in the near future, a lot of analysis
needs to be done up front in order to
decide where the greenwalk will go, and
to minimize the impact of future develop-
ment on greenwalk implementation.
The greenwalks that are a part of the not-
yet- built- to-ultimate- design thoroughfares
would be implemented as improvements
to those thoroughfares occur. The most
significant of these would be the Sandy
Lake Road Greenwalk which provides a
major east/west link to the Dal -Homy
Trail.
57
Citv of Connell
Development of the public portions of the
secondary system are the last priority
because their development and usefulness
is heavily dependent on the rest of the
trail system already being in place.
Implementation Components
With the priorities listed above in mind, the
overall Trail Master Plan was divided into
smaller pieces or components. The following
implementation components have been identi-
fied to meet these priorities while maintaining
a trail and route system that meets the
requirements previously discussed. (See
Exhibit 3 - Off -Road Trail System Compo-
nents.)
The first five components are considered to be
equal and implementable at this time. Compo-
nents six through nine appear to be con-
strained in various ways that make them less
viable for short-term implementation.
However, a change in development patterns,
funding availability, citizens' desires, ISTEA
funding philosophy and/or political climate
could change the assessments in a moment.
The implementation components were de-
signed to be logical blocks of work when
looked at from an ISTEA funding perspective.
The actual implementation schedule can be
totally rearranged to meet the needs and funds
available as the plan is implemented.
The adjacent map shows each of the following
trail components on a city map. Although
58
on -road bike route signing has been identified
as two components, the specific bike routes in
each component will be decided later. A
detailed breakout of each component, includ-
ing rough cost estimates, was delivered to the
Parks and Recreation Board and was used in
developing the Park Department five year
conceptual plan starting with FY 1996.
The following trail groupings are discussed in
a logical and practical order of implementa-
tion.
Component One. Denton Creek Trails (part
A) includes 36,620 feet of trail generally
along Denton Creek from the Grapevine city
limit east to DeForest at Denton Creek.
Component Two. Belt Line/Denton Tap
Corridor Trails include 53,870 feet of
north/south trails generally along Belt Line,
Denton Tap Road and Freeport Parkway. The
connected trails go all the way from the Irving
city limit north to Denton Creek Trail Part A.
Component Three. North Lake Trails
include 19,110 feet of trails from North Lake
Park north to Sandy Lake Road. The trails are
on T.U. Electric generating plant land and or
along power line easements.
Component Four. The Cottonbelt Trail
includes 38,750 feet of trail following
DART,s Cottonbelt rail R.O.W. from D /FW
Airport east to the Dal -Homy Trail in
Carrollton. This trail would be in the same
R.O.W. as the active DART rail line.
i1
7
W
�H
�Ncr+mw, /patron, Biebsneein, lam.
`l
Linear Park Trail
/The Duck Pond North Lake
Trails < -- Trail —
I, -
Exhibit 3 - Off -Road Trail System Components
City of Coppell
Trail System
Master Plan
Phasing Plan
Denton Creek
Trails (Part B)
Denton Creek Trails
(Part B)/Sandy Lake
Road Trails (Part B)
Alternate Trails --
Sandy Lake
Road Trail
(Part B)
`- Dal -Noma
Regional
Trail
59
City of Coppell
Although new to north Texas, the approach
of combining rail and trail in the same
R.O.W. has proven very successful and safe
in other parts of the country.
Component Five. On -Road Bike Route
Signs, Road Spot Improvements, and Bike
Route & Multi-Use Trail Map.
The on -road bike route components were
developed with the "availability of resource"
priority being the prime factor. Those
routes that utilize existing wider or low -
traffic roadways needing little or no
modification are the first to be: implemented.
Those which are a part of future road and
highway projects become the later phases of
implementation.
Bike routes should be initially implemented
on those roadways where no modification to
the current cross - section is required.
Signing about 50% of the 60 mile on -road
bike route system could begin immediately
by using existing bicycle - friendly roads.
The on -road signs, combined with a map
showing the signed routes and the trail
system, will make it possible for current and
potential bicyclists to expand their recreation
and transportation horizons„ The specific
bike routes to be included in this phase will
be selected later with citizen and council
input as to the relative priorities of various
routes.
Component Six. School Trails/Park Trails.
School trails include Wilson Elementary
(1,260 feet of trail), Austin Elementary (840
feet of trail), Lee Elementary (3,990 feet of
trail), and Mockingbird Elementary/Middle
School East (2,940 feet of trail). Each
60
school trail project also includes bicycle
parking.
Park trails include Woodhurst Linear
Park/The Duck Pond (3,780 feet of trail),
Andrew Brown, Jr. Community Park
(10,920 feet of trails), and Hunterwood Park
(840 feet of trail).
Component Seven. Sandy Lake Trail (part
A) includes 21,500 feet of trail from
Winding Hollow east to Kimbell Court.
Component Eight. Freeport Parkway Trail
includes 14,280 feet of trail from Bethel
Road north to Parkway Boulevard.
Component Nine. Sandy Lake Road Trail
(part B) includes 5,630 feet of trail from
Kimbell Kourt east to the Dal -Homy Trail in
Carrollton.
Component Ten. Denton Creek Trails
(part. B) includes 16,970 feet of trail from
MacArthur Boulevard. east and south to
Sandy Lake Road along the east shore of
Denton Creek. The Dallas Gun Club,
located in Carrollton, owns most of the land
needed for this component.
Component Eleven. This component
includes those bicycle routes on roadways
that need minor or major
modification/construction in any of the
following ways to achieve a bicycle - friendly
roadway:
• widening roadway to final thoroughfare
plan specifications
• redo lane striping
• widen intersections
• repave rough surface
Many of these future roads will be con-
structed as dictated by future development
and /or traffic increases within the city. This
component includes the remaining 50% of
the 60 -mile bike route system.
Component Twelve. Alternate for Sandy
Lake Road Trail (part B) and Denton Creek
Trails (part B). This component includes
9,240 feet of trail as an alternate in case
either Sandy Lake Road Trail (part B) or
Denton Creek Trails (part 13) cannot be
implemented. If Components Mne and Ten
can be implemented, this component will not
be needed.
Component Thirteen. The D;31-Homa Trail
will follow the Elm Fork of the Trinity
River on the east side of Coppell. Its exact
location is not known, even to the point of
being able to say which side of the river it
will be on. (The west side is Coppell; the
east side is Carrollton.) This excellent
project will eventually connect all the way
from Dallas to Oklahoma. Hopefully, the
in- progress Corps of Engineers Dal -Homa
Trail Study will resolve many of the current
unknowns. The trail was listed last because
of the uncertainty concerning its exact
location and timing.
Implementation Cheek List
The successful implementation of a bicycle
and pedestrian master plan calls for the
cooperation and support of many depart-
ments within the city. Since the plan
addresses recreation and transportation,
implementing the plan is not something that
can be assigned to one department to
implement without input and cooperation
from other departments.
City of Coppell
The following check list of after plan
approval follow up items only scratches the
surface of what will, in the long term,
change the way citizens, staff and council
view recreation and transportation in the city
of Coppell:
• The Park Dedication Ordinance needs to
be reviewed to be sure linear park space
(for trails) is allowed.
• Tax abatement incentives could be used
to encourage developer participation,
ordinances will have to be changed to
make this a reality.
• Preserving flood plain land for trail
corridors may require changes to the
Flood Plain Management Ordinance of
October 27, 1987.
• The Zoning Ordinance requirements for
off - street parking should be reviewed
with the addition of bicycle parking
requirements in mind. (Zoning Ordi-
nance page 98)
• A bike parking manual can be created
to support the changes to the Zoning
Ordinance. This manual will be needed
because developers are not familiar with
the details of implementing successful
bicycle parking. This manual should be
separate from the ordinance because it
will include a level of detail that would
be inappropriate for an ordinance and
because, as a working document, it will
need to change more often than an
ordinance would.
61
City of Coppell
• Submit applications for ISTEA and
• Thoroughfare Plan additions:
other funding for Trail Master Plan
implementation. The best strategy
- Flag roadway sections with
would be to apply for everything that
Greenwalks along them and
can be built at this time. If the city is
specify which side of the
awarded more ISTEA money than it can
road the greenwalk will be
afford to implement, it is allowable to
on. Implementation will be
refuse ISTEA project awards.
most flexible where the road
hasn't yet been built or
widened to its ultimate design
• Modify ordinances as needed such that
width.
all future development is required to
provide at least bicycle and pedestrian
- Where the greenwalks are
access between adjacent developments.
being added to existing
Just as adjacent office developments
ultimate cross - section roads,
now have a common motorized access,
the options for implementa-
ALL adjacent developments should have
tion are more limited. These
common non - motorized access. This
areas will require special
means that adjacent residential develop-
monitoring by staff to be sure
ments would have access to each other,
that space is set aside for the
as well as to any schools, parks, retail
greenwalk as piecemeal
or office developments They happen to
development occurs before
be next to. This will give citizens a
the trail section is
bigger chance to leave the car behind
implemented. The greenwalk
when making short transportation trips
will most likely be built in
in Coppell.
the combined city's parkway
R.O.W. and the streetscape
• The Subdivision Ordinance thoroughfare
required front yards (an
cross - sections for newly built roads
additional 10 or 15 feet).
need to be modified to include specifi-
(Subdivision Ordinance page
cations for cross - sections to be used on
114)
roads designated as bike routes. Note
that existing roads are not widened
- Flag roadway sections with
unless there are extenuating circum-
bike routes along them. Any
stances that make a stretch of existing
time the flagged roads are
road critical to the success of the plan.
built (new roads) or widened
(Subdivision Ordinance starting on page
(existing roads), wide outside
63)
lanes should be included if
the approved bike route
cross - sections call for them.
;Y?
Be sure that sidewalks are actually
built along all roads with curb and
gutter cross - sections. Subdivision
Ordinance page 103 currently says
to build them in almost all cases,
but it important that exceptions are
not given to every development.
• Change trail easements required through
new developments to a minimum 18
foot obstacle -free width with a 12 foot
concrete trail. A wider easement is
needed when walls or other barriers
block sight lines. The easements will
also need to comply with horizontal and
vertical radius of curvature require-
ments as per the August 1991 AASHTO
Guide for the Development of Bicycle
Facilities. (Subdivision Ordinance page
104)
Develop Standard Construction Details
of Hike 'n Bike Trail to reflect 12 foot
width, 5 inch thick, 3,000 PSI concrete,
number 3 bars on 18 inch centers, 3
foot grass shoulders, etc. The trail
construction details will reduce ongoing
trail maintenance expenses while also
allowing easy access by maintenance,
emergency, and police vehicles. (refer-
enced by Subdivision Ordinance page
104, but not found in the Standard
Construction Details)
Modify other Standard Construction
Details where roads, driveways and
sidewalks can be made; more bicy-
cle- friendly. For example, parallel bar
grates shown on pages SD 11 and SD
12 are not bicycle - friendly. Changes
made along this line will also benefit
wheel chair users crossing a road or
City of Coppell
leaving /returning to a parked or
disabled car.
Change Subdivision Ordinance
streetscape requirements such that
front yard requirements spell out an
allowed use by trails. This 10 or 15
foot wide front yard planting zone,
when combined with the city's
R.O.W. already available for park-
way uses, will make it possible to
implement greenwalks in areas where
space is otherwise is constricted.
(Subdivision Ordinance page 114)
• Since the trail master plan implemen-
tation involves so many departments,
it would be best to have overall
coordination of the implementation
funnel through a single person who
isn't associated with any one depart-
ment, but reports to the city manager
or an assistant city manager.
Funding Sources
Local Funding
The city has several funding options avail-
able regarding funding and implementing of
the trail system. A few of these sources
include:
• Park dedication funds
• General fund
• Enterprise and revenue funds
• Grants -In -Aid
• Parks and Recreation Capital
Improvement Program
• Possible future dedicated sales tax
Of these alternatives, bond funds offer the
63
City of Coppell
best potential for funding the implementation
of the system.
General Obligation (GO) bonds would aid
the implementation of the "greenwalks" and
the bike route program as part of the
implementation of the Thoroughfare Plan.
Other local funding opportunities could
come from the private sector through
foundation grants, company grants, individ-
ual donors and memberships, service clubs,
special events, fund raisers, etc.
Upper Trinity River Feasibility Study.
NCTCOG is currently seeking alternatives
related to flood damage reduction, environ-
mental enhancement, water quality, recre-
ational opportunities and other related
purposes. Funding for project implementa-
tion will not be considered until completion
of the Trinity Corridor Alternatives study.
This study should be finished sometime in
1996. Project funding should then be
available based on the study's recommenda-
tions.
Federal Assistance
Local funding either through bond pro-
grams, foundations, service organization
participation, etc. can be effectively
strengthened by using it as a "match"
towards available federal funds.
ISTEA Enhancement Funds. The most
attractive source of funding assistance is the
U.S. Department of Transportation's Inter -
modal Surface Transportation :Efficiency Act
of 1991 ( ISTEA). This program includes
provisions for spending $2110 million in
Texas on enhancements to the transportation
0
experience over the six-year life of the bill.
These funds are part of the Surface Trans-
portation Program portion of ISTEA and can
include pedestrian and bike facilities and the
preservation of abandoned railway corridors
(e.g., rails - to-trails). All ISTEA projects
must be submitted to the North Central
Texas Council of Governments ( NCTCOG)
and projects to be funded are selected on a
statewide basis by the Texas Transportation
Commission (the overseeing policy setting
body of the Texas Department of Transpor-
tation). These funds are 80% federal and
20% local. Included are: construction of
bicycle and pedestrian facilities, improved
recreational access, and protection of
historical and cultural resources m adjacent
areas. This funding source is being consid-
ered for reauthorization and/or modifications
by Congress for FY 1997.
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
Improvement. ISTEA also contains
provisions for $6 billion over its six -year
life for EPA defined air quality non- attain-
ment areas. These funds are funneled
through the NCTCOG Regional Transporta-
tion Committee (RTC). Priority consider-
ation is given to funding the 16 Transporta-
tion Control Measures (TCM's) listed in
Section 108 of the Clean Air Act. The
TCM's include several bicycle and pedes-
trian provisions.
Scenic Byways Program. $50 million of
nationwide ISTEA funds are available for
the planning, design and development of
scenic byways programs in the states.
Another $30 million is available for scenic
byways projects above any funding through
ISTEA transportation enhancements.
Recreational Trail Fund. Recreational
trails were projected to be funded in Texas
at almost $1 million in 1994, but as of
1995, Congress has not funded this pro-
gram.
This recreational trail fund would be funded
from gas taxes paid on fuel used for recre-
ational purposes. The Texas Parks and
Wildlife Department would accept applica-
tions for grants ranging from $25,000
($33,333 total value) to $2,250 ($3,000 total
value). Public agencies, citizen organiza-
tions and private corporations are eligible to
apply for these reimbursements grants.
Although local commitments must make up
at least 25 % of each project, the local
portion can be in volunteer labor.
It is anticipated that the money will be split
50/50 between non - motorized and motorized
projects. Both motorized and non - motorized
categories are required to have a minimum
funding level of 30% of the total funds
available. Trails that include both motorized
and non - motorized use will have the best
chance of being funded.
National Highway System. The National
Highway System (NHS) is freeway- oriented
and is funded at $21 billion over the life of
ISTEA. Facilities adjacent to the NHS can
include bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Up
to 50% of NHS money can be transferred to
the Surface Transportation Program (which
is the source of the ISTEA Transportation
Enhancement Funds).
City of Coppell
Mechanisms To Encourage
Trail System Development
As was mentioned earlier in this report, the
city should be responsible for the imple-
mentation of the network of primary trails
throughout the city with the private sector
being encouraged to implement the second-
ary trails. In that regard, various mecha-
nisms should be considered and evaluated to
encourage this development within both the
public and private sector. These mecha-
nisms should be geared to respond to four
broad issues:
• Land Acquisition
• Joint development techniques
• Preservation of the Natural Qualities
of the Trail System Corridor Re-
source
• Promotion of Bicycling as an Alter-
native Transportation Mode
Land Acquisition
There are many techniques that could be
employed to add land to the park system in
addition to fee- simple purchase. Of these,
the following appear to be especially suited
to promoting acquisition of land for the trail
system corridors:
• Mandatory dedication
• Taxation
• Land Donations
65
City of Coppell
Mandatory Dedication. This can be the
most equitable method of assembling the
required land for selected portions of the
primary corridors and most of the secondary
corridors. Developers of property contain-
ing a portion of the approved trail system
corridor would be required to dedicate a
portion of the property to allow for
implementation of the trail.
These dedications would need to be carefully
coordinated to ensure that the resulting
acreage is consistent with the adopted trail
corridor plan. Adoption of this technique
would require modification to the current
subdivision ordinance.
The Park Dedication Ordinance may need to
be modified to meet this need.
Taxation. The tax advantages to a
landowner for allowing the city to use a
portion of his property through a conserva-
tion or activity easement make this an
attractive mechanism to consider. Owners
of undeveloped property through which the
trail corridor passes might be encouraged
not to develop all or a portion of their
property. Property taxes could be assessed
at the property's undeveloped tax rate but
would not be collected until the property is
developed or sold for development. During
this deferral period, the public would have
use and enjoyment of the land. When
development does occur on the property the
city would be in a position to take a proac-
tive role in having the trail corridor inte-
grated into the new development. The use
of easements could also be a useful tech-
nique in securing the needed space to extend
the trail corridor through built out portions
of the city. Hand in hand with the use of
easements would be the city's assumption of
..
liability associated with the site's use as a
park. There are also tax reductions avail-
able for the donation of private land for
recreational and scenic use.
Land Donations. The city should encour-
age property owners to donate portions of
their land for development of trail corridors.
This would be a useful technique especially
where small slivers of privately owned
property are required to add to existing
drainage easements for the proper trail
development. Specific tax advantages are
available to those persons interested in
donating land.
Joint Development Techniques
Joint development would entail the use of
funds for private development that would
also include new public facilities. New
services of tax revenue and other benefits
are generated through these public- private
cooperative agreements. One technique to
be considered might be incentive zoning
where a developer would be allowed to
build at a higher density in return for
providing trails, linear parks, etc.
Preservation of the Trail System Corridor
Resource
Successful implementation of this system of
trail corridors will depend, in part, on the
natural drainageways of the city. Most of
these dramageways are within private
property including some land considered
within the 100 year floodplain. The consid-
eration of adopting a Watershed Manage-
ment Ordinance that would preserve flood
prone property as publicly owned or con-
trolled open space. This could help further
the development of a linear park system that
could make the implementation of the off -
road trail system much easier„
Promotion of Bicycling as an
Alternative Transportation Mode
There are a number of actions that the city
could take to promote bicycling as an
alternative transportation mode, however,
two actions stand out as having the greatest
immediate impact:
• Provide for secure and easy -to-use
bicycle parking.
• Develop a comprehensive bicycle
education program.
Bicycle Parking
It has been shown that one of the greatest
impediments to increased use of bicycles is
the lack of convenient and securable bicycle
parking at educational, employment, shop-
ping, cultural, and residential facilities.
Unsecured or improperly secured bicycles
are an invitation to thieves, who can easily
convert stolen bicycles to cash. It is
estimated that over four million bicycles
were stolen during 1993, making bicycles
the most frequently stolen item in the United
States. The provision of secure bicycle
parking will encourage more people to use
their bicycles as an alternative to automo-
biles.
As a separate action to the development of
the Trail System Master flan, bicycle
parking regulations should be developed as
part of the city's Zoning Ordinance. The
sections needing review and modifications
are:
City of Coppell
Section 31 - Off -street parking
requirements
Section 42 - Definitions
The specific modifications will be suggested
by staff and /or consultants at a later date.
Items to be addressed include:
• Number of required short- and long-
-term bicycle parking spots for each
use.
• Maneuvering area requirements for
bicycle parking.
• Bicycle parking location require-
ments.
• Drive through facility considerations
and requirements.
• The requirement for a 14 or 15 foot
wide entrance approach lane where
bicycle traffic is expected to be high.
• The requirement for bicycle parking
signage.
• Definitions of terms related to
bicycle use (e.g., Bicycle, Primary
Entrance, Short-Term Bicycle
Parking, and Long -Term Bicycle
Parking).
In addition to the above suggested ordinance
changes, a Bicycle Parking Manual should
be developed to guide and regulate the
development of parking facilities. The
manual would cover the details that are
critical to successful bicycle parking, but at
a level of detail that would be inappropriate
for the Zoning Ordinance. The manual is
67
City of Coppell
also much more flexible (e.g., more easily
changed) than the Zoning Ordinance. The
manual will work hand -in -hand with the
Zoning Ordinance and include The following:
• Design and construction standards to
include items like pavement standards
and the prohibition of adjacent motor
vehicle parking overhang.
• Preapproved commercially available
short- and long -term bicycle parking
devices.
• Designs for approved bicycle parking
devices for short- and long -term use
(e.g., parking racks, lockers, hitching
posts, etc.).
• Criteria for designing custom bicycle
parking devices not already approved.
• Bicycle parking signage placement and
design requirements.
Bicycle Use Education Program
Important to the success of any efforts to
encourage bicycle use are the education of
both bicyclists and motorissi s as to their
respective rights and responsibilities.
Bicyclists must realize they are operating
vehicles and that the same rules of the road
apply to them as apply to the operators of
any other vehicle. The Texas Bicycle
Coalition ('TBC) has prepared the excellent
"Don't Be A Beastosaurus" three -fold
brochure that addresses these bicyclists'
issues. The back page of this brochure
addresses motorists' responsibilities as
"Don't Be A Bubbasaurus ". It is available at
68
no cost for distribution through the TBC
and /or the Texas Department of Transporta-
tion.
Another way to educate bicyclists is to offer
the Effective Cycling Course, developed by
the League of American Bicyclists, at city
recreation centers. This course teaches
traffic handling skills so that cyclists are
able to better communicate with motorists.
These communication skills, when combined
with an improved respect for the law, make
cyclists more predictable and therefore less
of a hassle for motorists. The course also
teaches bicycle handling skills and bicycle
maintenance.
Motorists are often not aware that bicyclists
have a legal right to use the roads. A
motorists education process can be addressed
by the above mentioned TBC "Don't Be A
Bubbasaurus" brochure. The TBC has also
worked with the state on significant changes
to the Texas Department of Public Safety's
Driver's Handbook. The new handbook has
been printed and will be distributed as soon
as the current stock is depleted.
Many video Public Service clips, aimed at
motorists and bicyclists, are also available
from the TBC. Past clips have featured
famous people including John Tesh and Tom
Landry.
Regulatory roadside signage explaining the
legal status of bicyclists has proven to be
effective in areas where large numbers of
bicyclists and motorists are competing for a
narrow lane. The best solution is to widen
the outside lanes to 14 or 15 feet, but
signage can reduce confrontations in the
interim.
Education at area schools can have a great
impact by addressing the basics:
• ride on the right side of the road,
• use a light at night,
• stop at stop signs and red traffic lights,
and
• wear a bicycle helmet.
The first three of the above basic bicycle
safety tips are required by law and should be
addressed by police during normal patrol.
In most cases, a copy of the ' "Don't Be A
Beastosaurus" brochure and a friendly talk
can serve to increase bicyclists' awareness
of, and compliance with, the ]taw. Officer
discretion will play an important part in the
decision to ticket or not; in either case, the
goal is to maximize the potential for future
compliance and safety.
Security Concerns Regarding
Multi -Use Paths
Security concerns regarding multi -use paths
center on two broad categories:
• The security concerns of land owners
adjacent to the trails.
• The security concerns of trail users.
Adjacent Land Owner Security Concerns
The land owners adjacent to proposed trails
are naturally concerned about security for
themselves and their property. They fear
the unknown and need facts on the impact
City of Coppell
that a new trail will have. Their concerns
center on issues such as crime, vandalism,
reduced property values and litter. Where a
soon- to -be- abandoned railroad corridor is
involved, adjacent land owners often want
the land to revert to their ownership.
Statistics available from cities with trail
systems show that crime does not become a
problem along trails. But the concerns
about crime are real and must be addressed
from the land owners' point of view.
Reported crime climbs when a trail first
opens because there are now witnesses to
currently unreported crime.
Trails have proven to be self- patrolling, i.e.,
the more a trail is used the less likely there
will be crime. Crimes along trails occur at
the same or lower rates as at other locations.
Property values remain neutral or increase
up to six percent. After trails are built,
adjacent land owners use them and prefer
them to what was frequently an unmaintai-
ned eye sore before the trail. A classic
example is the railroad conversion to a trail
where land owners wanted 8 foot high walls
along the frontage, but finally agreed to try
the first year without a wall as long as they
could have a free wall installed after the
year ended. It has been several years and
none of the owners exercised their option.
The best way to handle the security issues
process is for the city to be positive and
open. It is important to encourage commu-
nication and keep everyone informed.
Reaching out to landowners (and the general
public) heads off rumors and any misinfor-
mation that may exist. The city should be
M.
City of Coppell
proactive and make certain that everyone
hears the good and bad news -from the city
first. Special efforts are needed to listen to
and address the concerns of opponents and
help them become allies in support of the
proposed project.
There are several studies that show the
positive impacts of trails, including one by
the National Park Service addressing trails
along old railroad right -of -ways.
Trails bring additional business to a city and
also bring recognition to the area as a good
place to live.
But the best proof of all that trails are
desirable is Dallas' White Rock Creek Trail
(running from the north end of White Rock
Lake Park to Valley View Park near LBJ
Freeway at Hillcrest). The trail, opened in
1986, has actually drawn development. A
developer built upper end "life: style ", single
family homes (costing $250,000 to $350,000
each) on the north side of Royal Lane
directly across from the trail because
"people would have immediate access to the
trail and also see an adjacent golf course."
One current resident, an attorney, told
Dallas Park Department personnel that he
specifically bought his home because he
wanted to have the trail at his doorstep.
Trail User Security Concerns
Trail users are concerned for their personal
safety (accidents and crime) and the safety
of their property (theft of bikes, cars, etc.).
Safety among the diverse trail users is
promoted through good design standards and
ongoing maintenance. A wide trail, shoul-
70
ders on both sides, center striping, hazard
signing, solar powered "911" call boxes in
remote locations, intersection and underpass
lighting and a concrete surface all contribute
to a safer trail environment. Maintenance of
sight lines and the level grass shoulders
contribute to a reduction in accidents and
also reduce the hiding places for the crimi-
nally inclined. Trail user behavior guide-
lines on signs along the trail and at kiosks at
staging areas can also contribute greatly to
the smooth interaction among trail users.
Fear of personal attack is often quoted as a
concern by those who are not trail users.
Those who do use trails do not have this
fear because threats to personal safety have
been proven to be no more than an occa-
sional problem. Normal neighborhood or
street patrol by police officers will address
trail user concerns about personal attack.
Easy access to the trail by police, emer-
gency and maintenance vehicles will all
contribute to the perception and reality of
user and resident safety. This means that
bollards need to be removable by operators
of the just mentioned vehicles. Occasional
unpaved turn- around spots needs to be
included in areas where the trail is sur-
rounded by vegetation (e.g., don't make a
fire truck back out of a wooded area).
The best way to address trail user concerns
about the safety of their cars while they use
the trail is to provide sidewalks and make
roads bicycle - friendly. This will encourage
trail users to walk or "drive" their bikes to
the trails.
Even with bicycle - friendly approach roads
and sidewalks, many trail users will choose
to arrive by motor vehicle and will need
parking areas with easy access to the trails.
Their parking and security needs can be met
be having joint use parking areas where
weekday employee parking will allow
evening and weekend trail user parking.
Parking lots that are easily seen from long
distances tend to have the fewest problems.
If trail user car parking is near restaurants,
food stores, and other attractions, there will
be a double benefit from before- and -after-
trail -use business and further reduced
parking area security problems.
Bicycle parking should also be installed at
trail parking areas in order to encourage the
maximum spill -over to nearby businesses
and to allow users the maximum flexibility.
For example, an individual might bike to the
trail and then walk from the trail head, or
bike to the trail and then walk. to a restau-
rant for a meal.
City of Coppell
71
City of Coppell
Trail System Master Plan References
Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials. AASHTO Task Force on Geometric Design. August 1991.
City of Dallas Bike Plan. City of Dallas Department of Transportation. 1985.
Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan for Coppell, Texas. 1994.
Construction and Maintenance, of Horse Trails in Arkansas State Parks. State of Arkansas Trails
Council, U.S. Forest Service. October 1983.
The Impacts of Rail- Trails. Moore, Roger and Conservation Assistance Program. U.S.
Department of the Interior. February 1992.
Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways. American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 1980.
Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal
Highway Administration. 1983.
Zoning Ordinance, City of Coppell. 1983 and updated 1991.
Major Thoroughfare Plan of the City of Coppell. Updated November, 1994.
City-Wide Storm Water Management Study for the City of Coppell, Texas. Albert H. Halff
Associates, Inc. January, 1991.
City of Coppell Subdivision Ordinance. 1994.
City of Coppell Standard Construction Details. May 12, 1992.
Accommodating the Pedestrian. Unterman, Richard K., Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.
1984.
The National Bicycling and Walking Study. United States Department of Transportation Federal
Highway Administration. 1994.
Trails for the 7Wenty -First Century. Ryan, Karen -Lee and the Rails- To-Trails Conservancy,
Island Press. 1993.
72
City of Coppell
Trail System Standards :Reference, continued
Greenways, A Guide to Planning, Design, and Development. Schwarz, Loring Lab. and The
Conservation Fund, Island Press. 1993.
73
City of Coppell
Appendix A - Thoroughfare Cross - Sections
Because this Trail System Master Plan depends on thoroughfares within the city to assist in
accomplishing its objective, close coordination with the thoroughfare plan is important. The
various thoroughfare classifications are shown here with recommendations for incorporating
greenwalks, wide outside lanes for bike routes, and sidewalks into the overall cross - section
requirements.
The following recommended cross - sections are suggestions that City Staff may have to modify
for any given project. Please refer to the City of Coppell Thoroughfare Plan for the minimum
requirement for cross - sections.
Notes for All Cross - Section Drawings
P6D Options
110' R.O.W.
C4D Options and C4D /6 110' R.O.W.
134' R. 0. W.
C4U Options
70' R.O.W.
C2U Options
050' R.O.W.
Residential Options
50' R.O.W.
Suggestions for Trail & Sidewalk Alignments
Along Roadway R.O.W. of Varying Widths
74
City of Coppell
Notes for All Cross - Section Drawings
1. Greenwalk tails along roads should be 12 feet wide
when the adjacent road does not have bicycle - friendly,
wide outside lanes. This situation occurs when a
geenwalk is added to an existing road.
2. The motor vehicle shy distance from the property line is
normally provided by a wider parkway. In this
configuration, the shy distance is provided by the
combination of the reduced parkway and the "bicycle"
portion of the wide outside lane.
3. The extra I0 feet of R.O.W. may be a streetscape
required "front yard" made available for trail use by
easement and /or future changes to the Subdivision
Ordinance.
4. This configuration is not currently used in the Trail
System Master Plan. This configuration does not work
very well along existing roads of this type, because the
adjacent property is residential.
75
City of Coppell
P60 Options
(110' R.O.W. Unless Otherwise Stated)
Current
Standard
Bike Route
Only
Bike Route
and
Greenwalk 1,2
120' R.O.W. Bike Route and Greenwalk 1,3
76
C40 Options and C40/6 in 110' R.O.W.
(90' R.O.W. Unless Otherwise Stated)
Current
Standard
Bike Route
Only
Bike Route
and Greenwalk 1 :
City of Coppell
i
110' R.O.W.* Bike Route and Greenwalk
* This most desirable cross- section occurs when a C41D road is built in a
P61D R.O.W. If a 1 00' R.O.W. is used, reduce the greenwalk side from
34' total usable width to 24' total usable width.-
I
i
77
F
U
City of Coppell
Cot! (Minor Arterial and Major Collector) Options
(70' R.O.W. Unless Otherwise Stated)
Current 44
Standard 1 4 4 5J is u u —� I: —}F ss:i 1
Bike Route Pq 11—
Only 41Utz -14� —n n — »Eau1- Is i
Bike Route - 02
and 1,2 z� a —E ',—r---,4 —» n —t-- u
Greenwalk » w
80' R.O.W. with -
Bike Route 1,3 -0—m-4
and Greenwalk n a »
78
C21.1 Options
(60' R.O.W.)
Current Standard
(Same cross - section used
for "Bike Route Only" on
C2U with Low ADT)
Bike Route Only- Option A
(for C21J with high AD1)
Bike Route Only- Option B
(for C2U with high ADI)
City of Coppell
1 4 4- 4.liL- r 12 11 - +r- {F+1 #+ t
1 PaddN �1 P�rkkg 1
L� M t to-
t U1Fr u w 11 � -r-{�� t
P11" Pakkp
ja 99 1
1 4 U d 14 tl -i r -� U.. 4 1
tt —� tt
Bike Route
and Greenwalk4 z+– tl t� U i 14 _ tl --+— r F is
79
City of Coppell
Residential Options
(60' R.O.W.)
Current
Standard
Bike Route
and Greenwalk
i a I-
t 44-1 ��
Suggestions for Trail & Sidewalk Alignments
Along Roadway R.O.W. of Varying Widths
Extra R.O.W. on
Greenwalk Side
3
I
I
I
I
3
O
rc
Extra R.O.W. on
Sidewalk Side
F--) I ,
FIE
Bench -�
I
- 5'Sidewalk -
- Roadway —
10'Greenwalk
City of Coppe"
Extra R.O.W. on
Both Sides
(Option 01)
3
0
_I
Approximate Curve
Radius Information:
Roadway -600'
Greenwalk/Trail -155'
Sidewalk -30'
81
r
-
3
I�
Extra R.O.W. on
.°
Both Sides
(Option •2)
Approximate Curve
Radius Information:
Roadway -600'
Greenwalk/Trail -155'
Sidewalk -30'
81
City of Coppell
Appendix B - Bicycle Route Notes
BR5 - Bicycle Route 5 was proposed as a
north /south route on Royal Lane for its
entire length in Coppell; from Royai Lane at
Threat, it continued north and west on a
Thoroughfare Plan road to the City Limit
along S.H. 121.
It was removed from the Plan before
Council approval, because Staff and two
Council Members had concerns about the
potential number of large trucks on Royal
Lane as the area develops. During the final
approval presentation to the Park and
Recreation Board, a Board Member wanted
the route restored but let it, go when the
presenting consultant stated the Plan was
still viable without BR5. This bike route
can easily be added back, if desired, at a
later date.
82
BR75 - Bicycle Route 75 originally contin-
ued all the way north on Samuel Boulevard
and then north on MacArthur Boulevard to
Lewisville. It was removed from the Plan
before Council approval, because Staff and
two council members were concerned about
the traffic on MacArthur Boulevard. The
bike route was rerouted to Hood Drive,
Phillips Drive and then through an alley
connection to end at BR70 on Glen Lakes
Drive.
If the traffic situation changes on MacArthur
Boulevard, this bike trail could easily be
restored to its original route, if desired.
Appendix C
Bicycle Lane and Wide Outside Lane
Considerations
Factors to consider when deciding
whether bike lanes or wide outside lanes
should be used include the following:
First the definitions:
• A bike lane is a 5 or 6 foot wide space at
the right edge of the driven roadway. The
bike lane is marked with a solid white
paint stripe on its left edge.
A wide outside lane is a normal lane
except that it is wider, typically 14 or
15 feet wide instead of the usual 11
or 12. No special paint striping is
used and the entire lane is available
for other road users when there are
no bicyclists present.
Cyclists are likely to be involved in
accidents when they turn left from bike
lanes. This happens because motorists and
bicyclists believe bicyclists are only
allowed to ride in the resented bike lane
space.
• Motorists think they should never drive in
a bike lane. Consequences include:
Cyclists are likely to be. involved in
accidents when motorists turn right
from the traffic lane next to the bike
lane.
Bike lanes are often filled with debris
because they are never swept clear by
City of Coppell
car tires. This makes bike lanes
unusable and the road becomes a
barrier to cycling. Some will go
ahead and use the main traffic lanes
(and this upsets motorists because
"bicyclists aren't staying in their
bike lane ").
Cyclists who are not capable of
dealing with traffic are enticed into
riding in a bike lane because they
feel "protected from cars." The false
feeling of safety also results in more
frequent unsafe actions like wearing
headphones. The reality is that white
paint will not protect a cyclist from
a car.
• Bike lanes are wide enough to be attrac-
tive as car parking or as an extra car
lane. Both will happen with and without
government approval. Cities have proven
unwilling to enforce bike lane status when
there is a bike lane. Over time, traffic
increases and cities often give in to
pressure to add extra lanes by converting
the bike lane into an official traffic lane.
• Bike lanes cost more than wide outside
lanes:
Bike lanes require more pavement to
build than wide outside lanes. Bike
lanes require 10 extra feet (5 feet in
each direction). Wide outside lanes
can frequently be provided with no
additional pavement width by
restriping existing lanes. The maxi-
mum additional requirement for a
83
City of Coppell
wide outside lane is 6 feet (3 feet
extra in each direction). Pave-
ment is expensive and the more
expensive bike lanes are less
likely to be built.
Bike lanes require more right of way
than wide outside lanes. This means
buying more land or further convert-
ing green space to pavement. Right of
way is especially expensive in urban
areas and the same width consider-
ations apply as above.
Street sweeping is an on -going
expense. If you don't sweep a bike
lane on a regular basis, it quickly
becomes unusable. Helpful sugges-
tions like, "Call the street department
to come sweep the bike lane," just
don't work in cities where money is
tight and severe deferred maintenance
programs have resulted in staff cuts.
Dallas has a street sweeping program
that has been cut to once a year.
Many north Texas suburbs don't even
own a street sweeper.
Paint striping is an on-going mainte-
nance expense.
Bike lanes are perceived as only meeting
the needs of bicyclists and are therefore
more likely to be cut from budgets. Wide
outside lanes are a shard -use facility
which increases the overall capacity of a
road while also meeting the needs of
cyclists.
84
In summary, when comparing bike lanes to
wide outside lanes, bike lanes are less safe,
cost more to build, cost more to maintain
and are likely to be converted to parking or
traffic lane use. The conclusion is that wide
outside lanes are the preferred on -road
bicycle accommodation.
Appendix D - Relative Bicycle Safety
It is apparent from the table shown below
that a bicyclist is 2.6 (292/114) to 5.0
(292/58) times more likely to have an
accident when bicycling off-road when
compared to cycling the same distance on
streets. III
The natural inclination is to think that the
rate of serious accidents per mile of travel
will be higher for on -road cycling when
compared to off -road cycling. It is perceived
that an accident with a another cyclist or
pedestrian can't be as bad as an accident
with a car, but this is not true. The accident
data also shows that the ratio of serious
City of Coppell
accidents to total accidents is approximately
the same for both on -road and off -road
cycling. This means that cyclists are more
likely to have serious accidents on hike and
bike trails when compared to cyclists who
use the roads to travel the same distance. 121
It is also interesting to note that a cyclist is
safer than the average motorists when
considering the accident rate per hour of
exposure P1. Dividing accident rate per mile
by the time it takes to travel a mile gives the
accident rate per hour. Doing this calcula-
tion for both cyclists and motorists reveals
that a cyclist is safer being on the road for
an hour than is a motorist (the cyclist just
doesn't go as far.
Type of Facility
Accidents Per Million Miles
Relative Safety Rate
of Travel
Low traffic bike route streets
58
5.0
(292/58)
Minor arterials (4 lanes)
104
2.8
(292/104)
Major arterials ( 6 lanes or
114
2.6
more, with median)
(292/ 114)
Off -road ( Hike and Bike
292
1.0
Trails, sidewalks, alleys,
(292/292)
etc.)
References:
"I J A Kaplan, Characteristics of the Regular Adult Bicycle User (Office of Highway Safety,
Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, 20590), 1975.
t2l J Forester (Cycle Engineering Consultant), Personal Conversation (Custom Cycle
Fitments, 726 Madrone Ave, Sunnyvale, CA 94086), Apr 1985.
"I J S Allen, "How Dangerous Is Bicycling ? ", Bicycling (33 E Minor St, Emmaus, PA 18049),
March 1984.
85
City of Coppell
Appendix E - Texas Bicycle Law Summary and
Excerpts
Texas Bicycle Law Summary:
Texas law has defined a bicycle as a vehicle
since September 1, 1983. Senate Bill 843
amended Texas law regarding the legal
status of bicycles to conform with the
national Uniform Vehicle Code. The law
makes it clear that a bicycle is a vehicle. It
also clarifies the circumstances under which
a bicyclist is permitted to ride away from
the right edge of the road.
The important points of Senate Bill 843,
which became Texas law on September 1,
1983, are:
• A bicycle is now defined as a vehicle in
Texas.
• A bicyclist has the same rights and
responsibilities as the drivers of all other
vehicles.
• A bicyclist may ride on a sidewalk if not
prohibited by local ordinance (e.g.,
sidewalk riding is not allowed in the
downtown Dallas central business dis-
trict).
• A person may stop, stand or park a
bicycle on a sidewalk as long as it does
not impede the normal and reasonable use
of the sidewalk.
A bicyclist should ride to the far right of
the road (i.e., on the right shoulder)
except when passing, when turning left,
WHEN THE RIGHT CURB OR EDGE
OF THE ROAD IS UNSAFE (including
surface hazards, parked or moving
86
vehicles), OR WHEN THE RIGHT LANE
IS TOO NARROW FOR A BICYCLE AND
A MOTOR VEHICLE TO SAFELY
TRAVEL IN THE LANE SIDE BY SIDE.
(The last two cases cover about 90% of the
roads in north Texas.)
A bicyclist may ride to the left curb or
edge of the roadway on a one -way
roadway having two or more marked
traffic lanes. Even though legal in some
cases, riding to the left is not a good
riding practice. In general, it is best to
ride to the right (and take the ENTIRE
right lane when appropriate) because
motorists are more likely to do something
crazy when encountering a bicyclist
riding to the left side of the road. You
can take the entire right lane by riding
where the left tire of a car would be -
your lane position will combine with the
curb to effectively occupy the entire right
lane.
A bicyclist may ride in any lane of a
street if he is able to keep up with traffic.
It is difficult to keep up with traffic in all
but the most unusual of circumstances,
and then only with a significant effort. In
any case, it is not a good idea to ride
away from the right of the road, where a
motorist might react dangerously upon
"encountering" you. Legal or not, you
lose when push comes to shove and you
"encounter" a 3,000 pound car. This
effectively means you should ride to the
right whenever it is SAFE to do so.
• Bicyclists may ride two abreast in a single
lane as long as they do no impede normal
and reasonable traffic flow.
Texas Bicycle Law Excerpts:
Gathered below are the most important parts
of Senate Bill 843, which is now part of
Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes„
A line starting with "•" indicates where the
following lines come from within Senate Bill
843. Quotations from the amended Vernon's
Texas Civil Statutes are enclosed by double
quotes ( "and ") and COMMENTS ABOUT
THE LAW ARE ENCLOSED BY SQUARE
BRACKETS ([and]).
• S.B. No. 843, Page 1 (lines; 01 to 03)
AN ACT relating to the application of
certain vehicle and traffic laws to bicycles
and bicyclists; ...
• S.B. No. 843, Page 1 (lines 12 to 20)
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLA-
TURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Subsection (a), Section 1,
Chapter 88, General Laws, Acts of the
41st Legislature, 2nd Called Session,
1929, as amended (Article 6675a -1,
Vernon's Texas Civil :Statutes), is
amended to read as follows:
"(a) 'Vehicle' means every device in, or
by which any person or property is or
may be transported or drawn upon a
public highway, except devices used
exclusively upon stationary rails or
tracks." ['This section previously excluded
anything "moved only by human power"
from the definition of a vehicle. It now
City of Coppell
includes a bicycle within the definition of
a vehicle.]
• S.B. No. 843, Page 2 (lines 10 to 12)
SECTION 4. Section 95, Uniform Act
Regulating Traffic on Highways (Article
6701d, Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes), is
amended to read as follows:
• S.B. No. 843, Page 4 (lines 07 to 09)
"(c) A person may stop, stand, or park a
bicycle on a sidewalk if the bicycle does
not impede the normal and reasonable
movement of pedestrian or other traffic
on the sidewalk." [This mans you can
"park" your bicycle next to a sign, light
or telephone pole and lock it to the pole
before walking away.]
• S.B. No. 843, Page 4 (lines 17 to 26)
SECTION 6. Sections 179, 180, 182, and
187, Uniform Act Regulating Traffic on
Highways (Article 6701d, Vernon's Texas
Civil Statutes), are amended to read_ as
follows:
"Section 179. TRAFFIC LAWS APPLY
TO PERSONS RIDING BICYCLES;
COMPETITIVE RACING. (a) Every
person riding a bicycle shall be granted
all of the rights and shall be subject to all
of the duties applicable to the driver of a
vehicle by the Act, except as to special
regulations in this Article and except as to
those provisions of this Act which by
their nature can have no application."
• S.B. No.843, Page 5 (lines 09 to 10)
"... 'Bicycle' as used herein means a
non - motorized vehicle propelled by
human power."
87
City of Coppell
• S.B. No. 843, Page 5 (lines 16 to 26),
Page 6 (lines 01 to 21)
"Section 182. RIDING ON ROADWAYS
AND BICYCLE PATHS. (a) Except as
provided by Subsection (c) of this section,
a person operating a bicycle upon a
roadway at less than the speed of the
other traffic on the roadway at that time
shall ride as near as practicable to the
right curb or edge of the roadway, except
when:"
"(1) the person is overtaking and passing
another vehicle proceeding in the same
direction;"
"(2) the person is preparing for a left turn
at an intersection or onto a private road or
driveway; or"
"(3) conditions on the roadway, including
fixed or moving objects, parked [doors
opening into your path] or moving
vehicles, pedestrians, animals, surface
hazards, or substandard width lanes, make
it unsafe to ride next to the right curb or
edge of the roadway."
"(b) For the purpose of Subsection (a) of
this section, a substandard width lane is a
lane that is too narrow for a. bicycle and a
motor vehicle to travel in the lane safely
side by side." [You will need at least 3
feet in addition to enough space for a
Cadillac, about 14 to 15 feet total, before
you can safely travel in the same lane
with motorized vehicles. This will leave
enough room to maneuver around road
hazards without getting into the path of
the other vehicles. If you think that 3
additional feet is too much, remember that
you are not protected by 3,000 pounds of
Detroit steel. If the right. lane is too
narrow to safely share, take: the ENTIRE
88
lane by riding where the left tire of a car
would be - your position and the curb
will combine to effectively take the right
lane.]
"(c) A person operating a bicycle on a
one -way roadway with two or more
marked traffic lanes may ride as near as
practicable to the left curb or edge of the
roadway." [Even though legal in some
cases, always riding to the left is not a
good idea because most drivers expect to
see bicyclists on the right.]
"(d) Persons riding bicycles upon a
roadway shall not ride more than two
abreast except on paths or parts of
roadways set aside for the exclusive use
of bicycles. Persons riding two abreast
shall not impede the normal and reason-
able flow of traffic on the roadway. If
persons are riding two abreast on a land
roadway, they must ride in a single lane."
"SECTION 187. DRIVING UPON SIDE-
WALK. No person shall drive any motor
vehicle upon a sidewalk or sidewalk area
except upon a permanent or duly authorized
temporary driveway." [Since bicycles are
not motorized vehicles, they may ride on a
sidewalk unless prohibited by local ordi-
nance.]
SECTION 7. This Act takes effect Septem-
ber 1, 1983. [The bill passed the Texas
Senate by a vote of 30 to 0 on April 7,
1983. The bill passed the Texas House by a
vote of 143 to 2 with 1 abstention on May
20, 1983. The bill was filed on June 15,
1983. The governor neither signed nor
vetoed the bill. The bill became Texas law
on September 1, 1983.]
[End of excerpts from Senate Bill 843.]
This article was prepared in cooperation
with the Dallas Police Department and
forms the basis of a roll call training
program periodically given to all City of
Dallas patrol officers.
NOTE TO BICYCLISTS: Keep this article
with your bicycle at all times - it will last
for years if put in a plastic baggy before
placing it in your patch ldt.
Written in 1984 by Dallas Police Deputy
Chief George Reed and Michael Carr and
approved by Dallas Police Chief Billy
Prince.
City of Coppell
89
City of Coppell
Appendix F - Cost Estimates
Phase 1 - Denton Creek Trail (Part A)
Phase 2 - Belt Line / Denton Tap Corridor Trails
Phase 3 - North Lake Trail
Phase 4 - Cottonbelt Trail
Phase 5 - On -Road Bike Route Signs
Phase 6 - School Trails / Park Trails (Total for below listed school & park trails)
Wilson Elementary Trail
Austin Elementary Trail
Lee Elementary Trail
Mockingbird Elementary / Middle School East Trails
Woodhurst Linear Park / The Duck Pond Trail
Andrew Brown, Jr. Commuauty Park Trails
Hunterwood Park Trail
Phase 7 - Sandy Lake Trail (Pant A)
Phase 8 - Freeport Parkway Trail
Phase 9 - Sandy Lake Rd. Trail (Part B)
Phase 9 - Denton Creek Trails (Part B)
Phase 9 - Denton Creek Trails (Part B)/
Sandy Lake Rd. Trail (Part B) Alternate Trail
$ 137,448.00
S 93,288.00
S 462,438.00
S 262,890.00
S 461,748.00
S 839,316.00
S 93,288.00
S 3,891,738.00
S 5,841,954.00
S 2,339,790.00
S 5,451,276.00
S 276,000.00
S 2,350,416.00
S 1,947,318.00
S 1,156,164.00
S 1,784,202.00
S 2,018,388.00
S 2,407,824.00
City of Coppell
Trail System Master Plan
Cost Estimate
Phase 1 - Denton Creek Trail (Part A)
(Grapevine City Limits east to DeForrest)
April 24,1995
Description
Qty. Unit
Cost / Unit
Item Cost
Trail Construction
36,620
LF
$50.00
S
1,831,000.00
(includes a 5% contingency)
Purchase KO.W.
2,520
LF
$50.00
$
126,000.00
(includes a 5% contingency)
Intersection Improvements
2 lane crossings
1
EA
$7,700.00
$
7,700.00
Interface Improvements
(e.g. trail comes to a road, crosses it, but doesn't
go beyond)
2 lane road
7
EA.
$7,700.00
S
53,900.00
6 lane road
1
EA.
$14,000.00
$
14,000.00
Trail (interfaces with another trail)
9
EA
$7,700.00
$
69,300.00
Park access point
5
EA
$7,700.00
$
38,500.00
Trail leave / enter / terminate at city limits
1
EA.
$7,700.00
$
7,700.00
Trail Bridge Construction
Large (e.g. Denton Creek)
3
EA.
$120,000.00
$
360,000.00
Medium (e.g. Cottonwood Creek)
1
EA.
$60,000.00
$
60,000.00
Trail Underpasses
(e.g. SH 121 & MacArthur)
420 LF. $600.00 $ 252,000.00
Sub -Total Phase 1 S 2,820,100.00
15% Contingency S 423,015.00
New Sub -Total Phase 1 S 3,243,115.00
(For TzDot Contract Administration,
environmental clearances, and design fees S 648,623.00
related to ISTEA funded construction.)
Final ISTEA Total S 3,891,738.00
NOTES WITHOUT DOLLAR IMPACT:
1. Denton Tap Trail underpasses (on N & S side of Denton Creek)
are being built & funded by the Denton Tap Rd Project.
2. R.O.W. mostly for DeForrest end of trail.
3. Future residential, NW of Denton Tap at Denton Creek, is very iffy.
Page 1
Phase 2 - Belt Line / Denton Tapp Corridor Trails
(Irving city limit north to Denton Creek Trail Part A)
Description Qtv. Unit Cost / Unit Item Cost
Trail Construction 53,870 LF $50.00 S 2,693,500.00
(includes a 5% contingency)
Purchase R.O.W. 7,350 LF $50.00 $ 367,500.00
(includes a 5% contingency)
Intersection Improvements
2 lane crossings
9
EA
$7,700.00
$
69,300.00
4 lane crossings
8
EA
$11,000.00
$
88,000.00
6 lane crossings
6
EA.
$\14,000.00
$
84,000.00
Trail (interfaces with another trail)
2
EA
$7,700.00
$
15,400.00
Railroad crossing
4
EA
$11,000.00
$
44,000.00
Interface Improvements
(e.g. trail comes to a road, crosses it, but doesn't go beyond)
2 lane road
6
EA.
$7,700.00
$
46,200.00
4 lane road
2
EA
$11,000.00
S
22,000.00
Trail (interfaces with another trail)
10
EA
$7,700.00
$
77,000.00
Park access point
2
EA
$7,700.00
$
15,400.00
Alley access point
2
EA
$7,700.00
$
15,400.00
School access point
3
EA
$7,700.00
$
23,100.00
Trail Bridge Construction
Large (e.g. Denton Creek)
4
EA
$120,000.00
$
480,000.00
Medium (e.g. Cottonwood Creek)
2
EA
$60,000.00
$
120,000.00
Small
2
EA
$30,000.00
$
60,000.00
Page 2
Phase 2 - Belt Line / Denton Tap Corridor Trails cont.
(Irving city limit north to Denton Creek Trail Part A)
Description Qty. Unit Cost / Unit Item Cost
Bike Parking
Bike racks for 25 bikes
EA.
Sub -Total Phase 2
15% Contingency
New Sub -Total Phase 2
$2,500.00
(For TzDot Contract Administration,
environmental clearances, and design fees
related to ISTEA funded construction.)
Final ISTEA Total
NOTES WITH DOLLAR IMPACT NOT INCLUDED ABOVE:
1. Possible mobile home park in NW corner of Belt Line at Bethel School Rd..
$ 12,500.00
$ 4,233,300.00
S 634,995.00
S 4,868,295.00
S 973,659.00
S 5,841,954.00
NOTES WITHOUT DOLLAR HAPACT:
1. ROW mostly for Freeport Parkway Train section, some for NW
comer of Belt Line at Wrangler & some for trail leaving Coppell High School going south.
2. South end of trail going back to Belt Line on -road treated as 6 lane road crossing.
3. Whatever is needed for Belt Line over LBJ Freeway treated as a 6 lane road crossing.
4. Grapevine Creek Trail going west from Belt Line will need to be on the south side of Grapevine Creek-
5. The Kingsridge Rd. to Coppell High School "hole in the wall" should be widened. Treated as an alley interface.
6. Section along North Lake Dr. will probably be on -road.
7. North exit from Coppell High School may be on -road
Page 3
Phase 3 - North Lake Trail
(North Lake Park north to Sandy Lake Rd. along TU Electric easement)
Description Qty. Unit Cost / Unit Item Cost
Trail Construction 19,110 LF $50.00 $ 955,500.00
(includes a 5% contingency)
Fill in Flood Plain 10,500 LF $50.00 $ 525,000.00
(includes a 5% contingency)
Intersection Improvements
6 lane crossings
2
EA
$14,000.00
$
28,000.00
Trail (crossing another trail)
1
EA
$7,700.00,
$
7,700.00
Railroad crossings
2
EA.
$11,000.00
$
22,000.00
Interface Improvements
(e.g. trail comes to a road, crosses it, but doesn't go beyond)
2 lane road
2
EA.
$7,700.00
$
15,400.00
6 lane road
2
EA
$14,000.00
$
28,000.00
Trail (interfaces with another trail)
4
EA
$7,700.00
$
30,800.00
Park access point
2
EA.
$7,700.00
$
15,400.00
Alley access point
1
EA.
$7,700.00
$
7,700.00
Trail Bridge Construction
Medium (e.g. Cottonwood Creek) 1 EA $60,000.00 $ 60,000.00
Sub -Total Phase 3 S 1,695,500.00
15% Contingency $ 254,325.00
New Sub -Total Phase 3 S 1,949,825.00
(For TzDot Contract Administration,
environmental clearances, and design fees S 389,965.00
related to LSTEA funded construction.)
Final ISTEA Total S 2,339,790.00
NOTES WITH DOLLAR IMPACT NOT INCLUDED ABOVE:
1. Deal with TU Electric.
2. Deal with Dallas and Irving on park land usage in North Lake Park on south end of trail.
NOTES WITHOUT DOLLAR IMPACT:
1. Possible on -road or greenwalk section at TU Electric generating plant entrance.
2. Line up future park trail end at MacArthur with Starleaf or alley between Starleaf and Condor.
3. Place Belt Line crossing as close to Mockingbird as possible.
Page 4
Phase 4 - Cottonbelt Trail
(From D/FW Airport to Dal -Homa Trail. in Carrollton)
Description Qty. Unit Cost / Unit Item Cost
Trail Construction 38,750 LF $50.00 $ 1,937,500.00
(includes a 5% contingency)
Fill in Flood Plain 6,890 LF $50.00 $ 344,500.00
(includes a 5% contingency)
Intersection Improvements
4 lane crossings
4
EA.
$11,000.00
$
44,000.00
6 lane crossings
3
EA.
$14,000.00
$
42,000.00
Railroad crossing
3
EA.
$11,000.00
$
33,000.00
Interface Improvements
(e.g. trail comes to a road, crosses it, but doesn't go beyond)
2 lane road
4
EA
$7,700.00
$
30,800.00
4 lane road
1
EA
$11,000.00
$
1.1,000.00
Trail (interfaces with another trail)
6
EA.
$7,700.00
$
46,200.00
Park access point
2
EA
$7,700.00
$
15,400.00
Alley access point
1
EA
$7,700.00
$
7,700.00
School access point ;
1
EA
$7,700.00
$
7,700.00
Trail leave / enter / terminate at city limits
2
EA.
$7,700.00
$
15,400.00
Trail Bridge Construction
Ex -Large (e.g. Trinity River)
1
EA.
$750,000.00
$
750,000.00
Large (e.g. Denton Creek)
4
EA.
$120,000.00
$
480,000.00
Medium (e.g. Cottonwood Creek)
2
EA
$60,000.00
$
120,000.00
Small
2
EA
$30,000.00
$
60,000.00
Page 5
Phase 4 - Cottonbelt Trail cont.
(From D/FW Airport to Dal -Homy Trail in Carrollton)
Description Qty. Unit Cost / Unit Item Cost
Bike Parking
Bike racks for 25 bikes 2 EA $2,500.00 5 5,000.00
Sub -Total Phase 4 S 3,950,200.00
15% Contingency S 592,530.00
New Sub -Total Phase 4 S 4,542,730.00
(For T=Dot Contract Administration,
environmental clearances, and design fees S 908,546.00
related to LSTEA funded construction.)
Final ISTEA Total S 5,451,276.00
NOTES WITH DOLLAR MIPACT NOT INCLUDED ABOVE:
1. Deal with DART.
2. Deal with D/FW Airport.
NOTES WTTHOUT DOLLAR EMPACT:
1. Bridge over LBJ Freeway counted as 2 large bridges.
Page 6
Phase 5
Description Qty. Unit Cost / Unit Item Cost
On -Road Bike Route Signs,
Bike Route & Bike Trail Maps, and 1 LS. $200,000.00 $ 200,000.00
Road Spot Improvements
Sub -Total Phase 5 S 200,000.00
15% Contingency S 30,000.00
New Sub -Total Phase 5 S 230,000.00
(For TzDot Contract Administration,
environmental clearances, and design fees S 46,000.00
related to ISTEA funded construction.)
Final ISTEA Total S 276,000.00
Page 7
Phase 6 - School Trails / Park Trails
School Trails
Wilson Elementary Trail
Description Qty. Unit Cost / Unit Item Cost
Trail Construction 1,260 LF $50.00 $ 63,000.00
(includes a 5% contingency)
Intersection Improvements
4 lane crossings 1 EA. $11,000.00
$
11,000.00
Interface Improvements
(e.g. trail comes to a road, crosses it, but doesn't go beyond)
2 lane road 1 EA. $7,700.00
$
7,700.00
Alley access point 1 EA $7,700.00
$
7,700.00
School access point 1 EA. $7,700.00
$
7,700.00
Bike Parking
Bike racks for 25 bikes 1 EA $2,500.00
$
2,500.00
Sub -Total Phase 6
$
99,600.00
15% Contingency
S
14,940.00
New Sub -Total Phase 6
S
114,540.00
(For TxDot Contract Administration,
environmental clearances, and design fees
S
22,908.00
related to ISTEA funded construction.)
Final ISTEA Total
S
137,448.00
NOTES WITH DOLLAR IMPACT NOT' INCLUDED ABOVE:
1. May need to remove existing narrow sidewalk on the back side of the school.
Page 8
Austin Elementary Trail
Description Qty. Unit Cost / Unit Item Cost
Trail Construction 840 LF $50.00 $ 42,000.00
(includes a 5% contingency)
Interface Improvements
(e.g. trail comes to a road, crosses it, but doesn't go beyond)
2 lane road 1
Alley access point 1
School access point 1
Bike Parking
Bike racks for 25 bikes
EA. $7,700.00
EA $7,700.00
EA. $7,700.00
1 EA $2,500.00
Sub -Total Phase 6
15% Contingency
New Sub -Total Phase 6
(For TzDot Contract Administration,
environmental clearances, and design fees
related to ISTEA funded construction.)
Final ISTEA Total
NOTES WITH DOLLAR RAPACT NOT INCLUDED ABOVE:
1. Close existing hole / passage through fence after project completed
(Located 50 feet west of alley off of Shadowcrest.)
Page 9
$
$
$
$
S
S
S
7,700.00
7,700.00
7,700.00
2,500.00
67,600.00
10,140.00
77,740.00
S 15,548.00
S 93,288.00
Lee Elementary Trail
Description
Qty. Unit Cost / Unit
Item Cost
Trail Construction
3,990 LF $50.00
$
199,500.00
(includes a 5% contingency)
Purchase ILO.W.
1,760 LF $50.00
$
88,000.00
(includes a 5% contingency)
Intersection Improvements
4 lane crossings
2 EA. $11,000.00
$
22,000•00
Interface Improvements
(e.g. trail comes to a road, crosses it, but doesn't
go beyond)
2 lane road
2 EA. $7,700.00
$
15,400.00
School access point
I EA- $7,700.00
$
7,700.00
Bike Parking
Bike racks for 25 bikes
I EA- $2,500.00
$
2,500.00
Sub-Total Phase 6
S
335,100.00
15% Contingency
S
50,265.00
New Sub-Total Phase 6
S
395,365.00
(For TxDot Contract Administration,
environmental clearances, and design fees
S
77,073.00
related to ISTEA funded construction.)
Final ISTEA Total
S
462,438.00
NOTES WITH DOLLAR HAPACT NOT, INCLUDED ABOVE:
1. West end is very fuzzy / hard to pin down.
NOTES WITHOUT DOLLAR IMPACT:
1. ROW needed at west end and at east end at the church.
2. Barbara Austin plat needs research.
Page 10
Mockingbird Elementary / Middle School East Trails
Description Qty. Unit Cost / Unit Item Cost
Trail Construction 2,940 LF $50.00 $ 147,000.00
(includes a 5% contingency)
Interface Improvements
(e.g. trail comes to a road, crosses it, but doesdt go beyond)
2 lane road
2 EA $7,700.00
$
15,400.00
Alley access point
1 EA. $7,700.00
$
7,700.00
School access point
2 EA $7,700.00
$
15,400.00
Bike Parking
Bike racks for 25 bikes
2 EA. $2,500.00
$
5,000.00
Sub -Total Phase 6
S
190,500.00
15% Contingency
S
28,575.00
New Sub -Total Phase 6
S
219,075.00
(For T=Dot Contract Administration,
environmental clearances, and design fees
S
43,815.00
related to ISTEA funded construction.)
Final ISTEA Total
$
262,890.00
Page 11
Park Trails
Woodhurst Linear Park / The Duck Pond Trail
Description
Qty. Unit Cost / Unit
Item Cost
Trail Construction
3,780 LF $50.00
$
189,000.00
(includes a 5% contingency)
Intersection Improvements
2 lane crossings
1 EA. $7,700.00
$
7,700.00
Interface Improvements
(e.g. trail comes to a road, crosses it, but doesn't go beyond)
2 lane road
2 EA $7,700.00
$
15,400.00
Trail Bridge Construction
Medium (e.g. Cottonwood Creek)
2 EA $60,000.00
$
120,000.00
Bike Parldng
Bike racks for 25 bikes
1 EA $2,500.00
$
2,500.00
Sub -Total Phase 6
$
334,600.00
15% Contingency
S
50,190.00
New Sub -Total Phase 6
S
384,790.00
(For TzDot Contract Administration,
environmental clearances, and design fees
$
76,958.00
related to ISTEA funded construction.)
Final ISTEA Total
$
461,748.00
Page 12
Andrew Brown, Jr. Communitv Park Trails
Description
Qty. Unit Cost / Unit
Item Cost
Trail Construction
10,920 LF $50.00
$
546,000.00
(includes a 5% contingency)
Intersection Improvements
Trail (crossing another trail)
1 EA. $7,700.00
$
7,700.00
Interface Improvements
(e.g. trail comes to a road, crosses it, but doesn't go beyond)
4 lane road
1 EA. 511,000.00
S
11,000.00
Trail (interfaces with another trail)
5 EA. $7,700.00
$
38,500.00
Bike Parking
Bike racks for 25 bikes
2 EA. $2,500.00
$
5,000.00
Sub -Total Phase 6
S
608,200.00
15% Contingency
S
91,230.00
New Sub -Total Phase 6
S
699,430.00
(For TzDot Contract Administration,
environmental clearances, and design fees
S
139,886.00
related to ISTEA funded construction.)
Final ISTEA Total
S
839,316.00
NOTES WITHOUT DOLLAR HAPACT:
1. Cross Parkway Blvd. as close to a street crossing as possible.
Page 13
Hunterwood Park Trail
(Connection to Bike Route 20 / Bethel Rd.)
Description Qty. Unit Cost / Unit Item Cost
Trail Construction 840 LF $50.00 $ 42,000.00
(includes a 5% contingency)
Interface Improvements
(e.g. trail comes to a road, crosses it, but doesn't go beyond)
2 lane road
2 EA. $7,700.00
$
15,400.00
Park access point
1 EA. $7,700.00
$
7,700.00
Bike Parking
N
Bike racks for 25 bikes
1 EA. $2,500.00
$
2,500.00
Sub -Total Phase 6
S
67,600.00
15% Contingency
S
10,140.00
New Sub -Total Phase 6
S
77,740.00
(For TzDot Contract Administration,
environmental clearances, and design fees
S
15,548.00
related to ISTEA funded construction.)
Final ISTEA Total
S
93,288.00
NOTES WITHOUT DOLLAR IINPACT:
1. Some of the south end may become on -road in the new residential development.
Page 14
Phase 7 - Sandy Lake Trail (Part A)
(Winding Hollow east to Kimbell Kourt)
Description Qty. Unit Cost / Unit Item Cost
Trail Construction 21,500 LF $50.00 $ 1,075,000.00
(includes a 5% contingency)
Intersection Improvements
2 lane crossings
14
EA.
$7,700.00
$
107,800.00
4 lane crossings
2
EA.
$11,000.00
$
22,000.00
6 lane crossings
2
EA.
$14,000.00
S
28,000.00
Interface Improvements
(e.g. trail comes to a road, crosses it, but doesn't go beyond)
2 lane road
2
EA.
$7,700.00
$
15,400.00
4 lane road
I
EA.
$11,000.00
$
11,000.00
6 lane road
2
EA.
$14,000.00
S
28,000.00
Trail (interfaces with another trail)
5
EA.
$7,700.00
$
38,500.00
Park access point
I
EA
$7,700.00
$
7,700.00
School access point
1
EA
$7,700.00
$
7,700.00
Trail Bridge Construction
Medium (e.g. Cottonwood Creek)
1
EA
$60,000.00
$
60,000.00
Bike Parking
Bike racks for 25 bikes
4
EA.
$2,500.00
$
10,000.00
Sub -Total Phase 7
S
1,411,100.00
15% Contingency
S
211,665.00
New Sub -Total Phase 7
S
1,622,765.00
(For TzDot Contract Administration,
environmental clearances, and design fees S 324,553.00
related to I;STEA funded construction.)
Final ISTEA Total S 1,947,318.00
NOTES WITH DOLLAR RAPACT NOT INCLUDED ABOVE:
1. South end of Town Center Trail spur may be very tight on ROW may be narrow or may have
to buy ROW.
NOTES WITHOUT DOLLAR IMPACT:
L Town Center Trails spurs may happen before Sandy Lake Rd Trail is ready to build.
2. If can't get to Kimbell Kourt on the east, stop the trail at Sugarberry Dr.
3. There is a road crossing about every 0.2 miles. This is very high!
4. Assume trail will be on N side of Sandy :Lake Rd
Page 15
Phase 8 - Freeport Parkway Trail
(Bethel Rd. north to Parkway Blvd.)
Description Qty. Unit Cost / Unit Item Cost
Trail Construction 14,280 LF $50.00 $ 714,000.00
(includes a 5% contingency)
Intersection Improvements
2 lane crossings 2 EA. $7,700.00 $ 15,400.00
4 lane crossings 3 EA. $11,000.00 $ 33,000.00
Interface Improvements
(e.g. trail comes to a road, crosses it, but doesn't go beyond)
Trail (interfaces with another trail) 2 EA. $7,700.00 $ 15,400.00
Trail Bridge Construction
Medium (e.g. Cottonwood Creek) 1 EA. $60,000.00 $ 60,000.00
Sub -Total Phase 8 S 837,800.00
15% Contingency S 125,670.00
New Sub -Total Phase 8 S 963,470.00
(For TzDot Contract Administration,
environmental clearances, and design fees S 192,694.00
related to LSTEA funded construction.)
Final ISTEA Total S 1,156,164.00
NOTES WITH DOLLAR IMPACT NOT INCLUDED ABOVE:
1. 14,280 linear feet assumes the trail's north end uses the not - yet -built thoroughfare plan
roads that touch SH 121. These thoroughfare plan road routes may change.
2. 11,760 linear feet would be needed if the north end of the trail uses Thweatt and Coppell Rd.
This route has very tight ROW along Thweatt and therefore may not work.
NOTES WITHOUT DOLLAR IMPACT: '
1. Depends on construction of Freeport Parkway from Ruby to Bethel Road
Page 16
Phase 9 - Sandy Lake Rd. Trail (Part B)
(Kimbell Kourt east to Dal -Homy Trail in Carrollton)
Description Qty. Unit Cost / Unit Item Cost
Trail Construction 5,630 LF $50.00 5 281,500.00
(includes a 5% contingency)
Purchase R.O.W. 2,520 LF $50.00
$
126,000.00
(includes a 5% contingency)
Fill in Flood Plain 2,180 LF $50.00
$
109,000.00
(includes a 5% contingency)
Interface Improvements
(e.g. trail comes to a road, crosses it, but doesn't go beyond)
4 lane road 1 EA $11,000.00
$
11,000.00
Trail (interfaces with another trail) 1 EA $7,700.00
$
7,700.00
Park access point 1 EA. $7,700.00
$
7,700.00
Trail Bridge Construction
Ex-Large (e.g. Trinity River) 1 EA. $750,000.00
$
750,000.00
Sub -Total Phase 9
S
1,292,900.00
15% Contingency
S
193,935.00
New Sub -Total Phase 9
S
1,486,835.00
(For TzDot Contract Administration,
environmental clearances, and design fees
S
297,367.00
related to ISTEA funded construction.)
Final ISTEA Total
S
1,784,202.00
NOTES WITH DOLLAR HAPACT NOT INCLUDED ABOVE:
1. Deal with Dallas County on putting trail, in road ROW.
2. Lots of drive%2ys to deal with on N side of road
3. Retail to deal with on S side of road near west end
Page 17
Phase 9 - Denton Creek Trails (Part B)
(MacArthur to Sandy Lake Rd. - through Dallas Gun Club in Carrollton.)
Description Qty- Unit Cost / Unit Item Cost
Trail Construction 16,970 LF $50.00 $ 848,500.00
(includes a 5% contingency)
Purchase ILO.W. 8,150 LF $50.00 $ 407,500.00
(includes a 5% contingency)
Intersection Improvements
6 lane crossings
I
EA
$14,000.00
$
14,000.00
Trail (crossing another trail)
I
EA-
$7,700.00
S
7,700.00
Railroad crossing
1
EA-
$11,000.00
$
11,000.00
Interface Improvements
(e.g. trail comes to a road, crosses it, but doesn't go beyond)
2 lane road
I
EA-
$7,700.00
$
7,700.00
Trail (interfaces with another trail)
2
EA-
$7,700.00
$
15,400.00
Park access point
4
EA-
$7,700.00
$
30,800.00
Trail Bridge Construction
Large (e.g. Denton Creek)
EA.
Sub-Total Phase 9
15% Contingency
New Sub-Total Phase 9
V20,000.00 $ 120,000.00
(For TxDot Contract Administration,
environmental clearances, and design fees
related to ISTEA funded construction.)
Final ISTEA Total
NOTES ATM DOLLAR IMPACT NOT INCLUDED ABOVE:
1. Deal with Carrollton since trail is in their city
2. Deal with TU Electric
3. Deal with Dallas Gun Club.
NOTES WITHOUT DOLLAR IMPACT:
1. ROW is for Dallas Gun Club.
2. Park access allowances included to meet possible special needs / requirements
for Dallas Gun Club and for Lewisville Athletic Complex
Page 18
S 1,462,600.00
S 219,390.00
5 1,681,990.00
S 336,398.00
S 2,018,388.00
I
i
..".B -UN CLUB
COPPELL
TRAIL
SYSTEM
MASTERPLAN
City of Coppell, Texas