Thoroughfare-SY 900713Barton - Aschman Associates, Inc.
5485 Belt Line Road, Suite 199
Dallas, Texas 75240
USA
July 13, 1990
Mr. Per Birdsall
Street Superintendent
City of Coppell
P.O. Box 478
Coppell, TX 75019
RE: West Side Thoroughfare Plan Up
BA No. 3311.01.01/06
Dear Mr.Birdsall:
ite
Phone: (214) 991 -1900
Fax: (214) 490 -9261
Metro: 263 -9138
JUL i 8 I
Enclosed please find one copy of our final -eport, suitable for reproduction, in accordance with
Section C of our contract. This formally completes the contractual obligation between the City
of Coppell and Barton- Aschman Associates, Inc.
We have enjoyed working with the City
with you and your staff in the future.
Sincerely,
BARTON - ASCHMAN ASSOCIATES,
il �4? V,�60
Kenneth R. Marshall, P.E.
Senior Associate
enclosure
cc: Mr. Alan Ratliff (w /o enclosure)
Mr. Steve Goram (w /o enclosure)
Mr. Gary Siab (w /o enclosure)
this important project and look forward to working
ROADWAY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS
AND DESIGN STANDARDS
FOR
CITY OF COPPELL
m
Barton- Aschman Associates, Inc.
ROADWAY FUNCT
AND DESC
ZONAL CLASSIFICATIONS
GN STANDARDS
a•"
CITY OF COPPELL
BARTON -ASCHI
5485 Belt
BY
IAN ASSOCIATES, INC.
,ine Road, Suite 199
s. Texas 75240
1990
ROADWAY FUNCTIONAL CLA
FOR CITY
CONTENTS
List of Figures and Tables
1. BACKGROUND
2. FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS
Why Functional Classifications?
Roadway Classifications
3. SPACING
Arterials
Collectors
Locals
4. DESIGN STANDARDS
Lanes
Standard Cross- Sections
Setbacks
Intersection Treatments
Access Control
5. DEVIATION FROM STANDARDS
APPENDIX A - TAP Zone Map
7ICATIONS AND DESIGN STANDARDS
COPPELL, TEXAS
APPENDIX B - 1986 and 2010 Demographic Data
APPENDIX C - Standard Cross - Sections
APPENDIX D - Intersection Treatments
i
PAGE
ii
1
3
3
3
6
6
6
6
7
7
I1
12
12
12
13
LIST OF FIGURES
PAGE
1. Roadway Function by Classific tion 2
2. Projected Traffic Volumes 9
3. Proposed Thoroughfare System 10
LIST OF TABLES
1. Roadway Functional Classifica ions and
General Planning Guidelin s
2. Roadway Lanes by Functional 1plassification
ii
1.
BACKGROUND
The thoroughfare plan of the City of Co
roadways. These functional classification
roadway within the overall thoroughfare
spell is based on system of functionally classified
are intended to reflect the role or function of each
ystem.
The functional classifications describe each roadway's function and reflect a set of
characteristics common to all roadways within each classification. Functions range from
providing mobility for through traffic and major traffic flows to providing access to specific
properties. Characteristics unique to each classification include degree of continuity, general
capacity, and traffic control characteristics. Figure 1 illustrates the relative roles of each
classification to achieve its intended fun tion.
Design standards, as discussed in this rep
functional classification. These characti
their intended functions without resultin
Maintaining these characteristics allows
efficiency and safety.
irt, describe the generalized characteristics of each
ristics are necessary to insure roadways will serve
in diversion of traffic to or from these facilities.
he roadways to operate as intended, with maximum
Complete access co
little local traffic
ALL MOVEMENT
a f-
ZZ
�w
w w
2�
Zo
i ACCESS
I FUNCTION j
I I
I I
i l
I I
I I
I I
I I
I l
I
I No through traffic, I
I unrestricted accessl
\1
COLLECTOR LOCAL CUL
DE
SAC
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION
FIGURE 1
ROADWAY FUNCTION BY CLASSIFICATION
N
O
�
I'-
U
F
;::
z
....
FUNCTION
03
uj
Q
w
1.:
o
?:
ALL ACCESS
EXPRESSWAY
ARTERIA L
i ACCESS
I FUNCTION j
I I
I I
i l
I I
I I
I I
I I
I l
I
I No through traffic, I
I unrestricted accessl
\1
COLLECTOR LOCAL CUL
DE
SAC
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION
FIGURE 1
ROADWAY FUNCTION BY CLASSIFICATION
N
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS
WHY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICA
Functional classifications for thoroughfare roadways are needed to provide an underlying basis
for determining the following:
- Desired degree of continuity
- Capacity level
- Traffic control strategy
- Design speeds and other general riteria
- Access policy
- Development criteria (setbacks)
In order to function properly, streets mus
desired function, but must also appear tc
streets typically have four or more lanes,
way, higher design speeds, high level of nil
them priority at intersections with lower c
low design speeds and restricted right -of
functional classification system provide
roadway system.
ROADWAY CLASSIFICATIONS
There are four basic functional elassif
not only be designed to provide adequately for the
the driver to be appropriate for the role. Arterial
iedians, turn lanes at intersections, wider rights-of -
httime illumination, and traffic control which gives
lass streets. Local streets have one or two lanes with
-way which tend to limit through movement. The
a basis for applying these characteristics to the
ions of roadways. These are:
Freexjays - high capacity fa ilities with controlled access intended to carry high
volumes of longer distance trips; high capacity supplement to arterial system.
Arter als - carry through traffic between areas. Relatively high speed,
contiguous, high capacity oadways with mobility as their priority function.
Property access is low prio ity function.
• Collectors - primary f unctic n is to link the local streets with the arterial system;
function as collector-distributors and provide property access to commercial
properties.
• Local - provide access to individual properties. Accommodation of significant
through traffic is not an appropriate function.
City street systems consist of arterials, c llectors, and local streets. Freeways are normally
under the jurisdiction of the State Depar ment of Highways and Public Transportation, and
are therefore not the responsibility of the municipalities. The remainder of this discussion,
which relates to the city municipal thoroughfare systems, addresses only arterials, collectors,
and locals. Typical design standards for freeway are given, but are not discussed in detail.
Table 1 describes the most important cha
functional classification system is more gei
thoroughfare plan. That plan subdivides
the actual roles of the classification su
classification contained herein includes su,
The collector classification includes majo
racteristics of the functional classifications. This
feral than that currently incorporated in the Coppell
the arterial and collector classifications. However,
)divisions are essentially the same. The arterial
A nomenclature as major arterial and minor arterial.
collector and minor collector.
4
TABLE 1
RnAnUAY FIINCT1nNA1 CIASSIFICATInNS AND GFNFRAI. PLANNING ruinFLINFS
Minimum roadway
Approx. Spacing
Direct Land
Intersection
Speed Limit
Comments
Classifications
Function
Continuity
(Mites)1
Access
Spacing
(mph)
Parking
Freeway and
Traffic Movement
Continuous
4
None
1 mile
45 -55
Prohibited
Supplements capacity
Expressway
and arterial street
system and provides
high speed mobility.
Arterial
Moderate distance
Continuous
1/4 -12
Restricted- some
1/8 mile
35 -45
Prohibited
Backbone of street
intercommunity,
movements may be
1/4 mile on
system.
intrametro area,
prohibited;
regional route
traffic movement.
number and
Minor function-
spacing of
land access.
driveways
controlled.
May be limited to
major generators
on regional
routes.
Collector
Primary - collect/
Not necessarily
1/4 - 1/22
Safety controls;
300 feet
30
Limited
Through traffic
distribute traffic
continuous; may
limited
should be discouraged
between local
not extend
regulation
streets and
across
arterial system.
arterials.
Secondary - land
access.
Tertiary -
interneighborhood
traffic movement.
Local
Land Access
None
As needed
safety control
300 feet
30
Permitted
Through traffic
only
should be
discouraged.
NA = Not applicable.
1Spacing determination should also include consideration of (travel projections in the area or corridor based on) ultimate anticipated development.
2Denser spacing needed for commercial and high density residential districts.
3.
SPACING
One of the most critical elements in dev
roadways of a particular classification.
basic structure of the thoroughfare syste
ARTERIALS
ing a thoroughfare plan is the spacing between
t critical is spacing of arterials which form the
Table 1 shows the desirable spacing for rterials. Under most circumstances, the following
spacing is appropriate for development types existing and projected in Coppell:
- Low to moderate density suburb n residential - one mile
- High density residential and mo Icrate density commercial suburban - one -half mile
- Dense commercial - one - quarter qiile or less
If these spacings are not achievable, additi nal capacity should be provided with extra through
lanes, grade separations, limitations of acc ss, intersection improvements, and other treatments
to preserve or enhance the capacity of ar erials which can be developed.
COLLECTORS
Spacing of collector$ should be in the ran 4e of one - quarter mile in the non - residential sectors
of Coppell. This provides flexibility f orl various configurations of local street systems and
adequate capacity to accommodate traffi needs.
LOCALS
Local streets may be spaced as appropriatel to provide access to individual land parcels. Parcel
size and development layouts will dictate the appropriate spacing.
2
4.
DESIGN STANDARDS
For the purposes of this report, design
classification, standard cross - sections, se
Each of these is described in a separate si
LANES
andards include numbers of lanes by functional
acks, intersection treatments, and access control.
tion below.
The number of lanes require for each roadway should be determined based on the projected
traffic volumes to b¢ accommodated on ca .,h street. The number of lanes may vary from street
to street even though their functional clas ifications may be the same. Table 2 shows the range
in moving traffic lanes by functional classification. Both arterial and collector classifications
contain variations based on the characteristics of the individual streets.
TABLE 2
ROADWAY LANES BY FUNCTIONAL
CLASSIFICATION
Lanese
2
4
5
4D
6D
Functional Classification
Arterial - Limited Continuity
X
X
X
Continuous
X
X
High Clapacity /Regional
X
Collector - Residential /Commercial
X
X
X
Industrial
X
X
Local - Residential /Commercial
X
X
tD - divided roadway with median
Thoroughfare plan recommendations were arrived at with the assistance of the North Central
Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG . NCTCOG has tested the alternative network using
the TRANPLAN travel forecast package. Barton- Aschman and the City provided input to this
model in the form of the roadway network and "enhanced" demographic data for the year 2010.
The enhanced demographic data was dev loped from information received from the Coppell
Commercial Land Oiwners Association. A 1 undeveloped land was assumed to be developed in
accordance with the cities adopted land u e plan. Appendix A is a zone map that was used by
it
NCTCOG. The zome map shows how the city was subdivided for analysis purposes. An
estimate was made of the number of employees and residents per zone. Appendix B has the
existing 1986 demographic data and the enhanced year 2010 demographic data per zone. These
employment figures represent a gain of approximately 45,000 employees over what NCTCOG
had been assuming for the year 2010.
The resulting traffic volume forecast, illustrated in Figure 2, represents the estimated daily
traffic volume projections for the year 20 10 given the thoroughfare system is in place and the
population and employment estimates become reality. Many of these volumes represent a 180
to 300 percent growth in traffic over counts on record for 1986.
The traffic volume projections are used t determine the width of the proposed thoroughfare
plan network given in Figure 3. The follo ing volume criteria, based on the Highway Capacity
Manual, is used to determine the street widths at a level of service C design level:
• Two Lane Roadway - 0 > x > = 10,000 vpd
• Four Lane, Undivided Roadway - 10,000> x > = 20,000 vpd
• Four Lane, Divided Roadway - 20,000> x > = 25,000 vpd
• Six Lane, Divided Roadway -- 25,000> x > = 35,000 vpd
In no case is a thoroughfare exceeding cap city with the recommended widths shown in Figure
3. However, in some cases additional ca acity is recommended due the relationship of the
thoroughfare and the adjacent land uses namely Freeport Parkway and Sandy Lake Road.
Where thoroughfares transition from onciclass of thoroughfare to another at an intersection
special intersection treatments will be necessary.
Some individual thoroughfare issues that have been raised involve Gateway
Parkway /Southwestlern Parkway, Bethel Road, Sandy Lake Road and SH 121. The issues that
were raised and the recommendations that address those issues are as follows:
Gateway Parkway /Southwestern
Issue How wide should the roads be, four lane divided or undivided?
Recommendation - Gateway Parkway should be four lane divided between Belt
Line Road and Freeport P rkway and four lane undivided between Freeport
Parkway and Royal Lane. Southwestern should be a two lane undivided. The
undivided section will serve as a collector street in the industrial areas were a
large number of trucks are expected. The median in a divided roadway would
be an added obstacle for the large trucks expected to use the roadway.
Bethel Road
Issue - Bethel Road serves the Historical District in Coppell. However, it also
serves commercial and industrial land uses. Does it need to be a six lane divided
roadway as called for in the current plan?
Recommendation - Bethel Zoad needs to be six lane divided from SH 121 to
Royal Lane. Between Roya Lane and Freeport Parkway it narrows to four lane
undivided. In the Historic il District, between Freeport Parkway and Denton
Tap Road, a two lane and vided section is all that is warranted at this time
based on the results of this tudy. However, in order to maintain flexibility in
this area as zoning pattern change and traffic movements adjust, a 65 -foot
0
I
321, 1 \ vi
FIGURE 2
VOLUMES IN THOUSANDS AVERAGE
DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
YEAR 2010
9
O
11 `�
C4LL
I
I
I �Ia
oI
L -_ -�
- - - -- ---- -'—.f— - -"-ca �-- - -- - --
non SA
.y
0
SCHOOL
BETHEL RD.
LEGEND
2CU /4 - 2 LANE UNDINIM N A
4 WE UNDIVIDED Wff OF WAY
CZ) - 2 LANE UNDIVIDED
WRANGLER C40 - 4 LANE UNDIVIDED
C4D - 4 LANE DINGED
c P6D - 6 LANE DIVIDED
a G016 - 4 LANE DIVIDED N A
6 LANE DIVIDED RIGHT OF WAY
EbSllllG 1HOR000WARE
- — — PROPOSED THOROUGHFARE
BEL
I V
SCALE 1' • 4000'
FIGURE 3
CITY OF COPPELL
MAJOR THOROUGHFARE PLAN
right -pf -way capable of accommodating a four lane, undivided, street is
proposed. Bethel Road will serve as a major access point from SH 121, but does
not serve as a major through route in Coppell and thus, sections away from S.H.
121 it can be narrowed. The City Council has requested that further study be
made to satisfy all the needs and concerns of property owners and Historical
District advocates between Freeport Parkway and Denton Tap Road.
Sandy Lake Load
Issue - How many lanes are required through the city?
Recommendation - Sandy Lake Road needs to be six lane divided from SH 121
to Freeport Parkway and the remainder should be four lane divided. Sandy
Lake Road will be a major east -west route through Coppell. Right -of -way
should be reserved along the four lane divided section for the possible expansion
to six lane divided if travel demand increases in the future.
SH 121
Issue • How many interchanges should there be and where?
Recommendation - Kimley Horn and Associates, Inc. has been working with the
City of Coppell and District 18 of the State Department of Highways and Public
Transportation to revise the access plan along SH121 that was developed several
years ago by Deshazo, Starek, and Tang, Inc. The City of Coppell should pursue
plans that would increase access from the south. The current plan has just one
exit ramp from the south. Having just one exit ramp creates an imbalance in
entrance and exit points that impacts the main lanes of the freeway and an
undesirable level of service at the northbound exit ramp to Freeport Parkway.
Further study should be made in an effort to improve northbound exiting
capacity.
STANDARD CROSS- SECTIONS
Roadway cross - sections are composed of a total right -of -way width, pavement widths, median
widths, and parkway widths. Appendix C shows the recommended standard roadway cross -
sections for various functional classifications and numbers of lanes.
These cross - sections represent mid -block conditions. In some instances (discussed under
intersection treatments) the cross - sections will vary in the vicinity of intersections.
These cross - sections have been developed in accordance with the following criteria: (1) 11 to
12 -foot lanes, (2) minimum of 10 -foot parkways, (3) 11 -foot single left -turn lanes and 22 -foot
double left -turn lages, (4) adjacent to left -turn lanes, minimum island widths of 6 feet to
provide sufficient lateral clearance (2 feet) when signs or signals are located on medians.
It is recommended that sidewalks be constructed to a minimum width of 4 feet. Sidewalks
should be 5 feet or more in width in non - residential areas or where sidewalks are next to the
curb. In commercial areas with no internal sidewalks where volumes exceed 100 pedestrians
per hour, sidewalks Should be 10 feet or more in width. In these same high volume pedestrian
areas; widths beyond the standard cross - sections should be considered. As an alternative,
11
sidewalks may be considered for public easements adjacent to the right -of -way or on private
property adjacent to the buildings which generate the pedestrian activity.
Several roadways in Coppell that, according to the analysis, should be four lane divided may
need to be expanded in the future due to their regional significance. For this reason it is
recommended that the four lane divided roadways be built in a 110' right -of -way that could
accommodate a six lane divided roadway. Those roadways identified as having potential
regional significance include: Sandy Lake Road, Belt Line Road /Gateway Boulevard, Parkway
Boulevard, Freeport Parkway, Belt Line Road /Denton Tap Road, and MacArthur Boulevard.
Also, as previously discussed, Bethel Road from Freeport Parkway to Denton Tap Road should
have 65 feet of right-of -way.
SETBACK
Setbacks of buildings and parking facilities from right -of -way lines are desirable to provide
space for landscaping, additional sidewalk or parkway width, and possible unanticipated street
widenings, as per the City of Coppell Streetscape Plan. It is recommended that setbacks be 15
feet on both sides of each street at all intersections of arterials with other arterials. This
setback will allow for double left and free right turn lanes. It would be desirable to maintain
a setback of 15 feet after the auxilary lanes were added at an intersection.
INTERSECTION TREATMENTS
At intersections between arterial and collector streets, special treatments should be considered
to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate existing or projected volumes. These treatments
may include left -tu4n lanes, right -turn lanes, double left -turn lanes, or grade separations. In
unusual cases other hypes of improvements may be appropriate. These could include left -turn
flyovers, bus priority provisions, light rail, transit stop platforms, etc., however, these are
special cases that are not covered under design standards and do not appear to be necessary for
the City of Coppell. Each intersection treatment will be designed based on the specific needs
of that location.
It is appropriate and advisable to reserve sufficient right -of -way to accommodate probable
intersection improvements. In many instances, additional right -of -way near the intersection
will be required to 4ccommodate the turning movement needs at the intersection. Appendix
D shows the additional right -of -way necessary to accommodate recommended intersection
treatments at all major intersections in the study area. Figure D -11 shows some typical
treatments for minor intersections. The figure shows the corner cuts required to provide 25
foot curb radii in residential areas, and 30 foot curb radii in commercial areas.
ACCESS CONTROL
A recommended access control policy should be prepared for utilization within the City of
Coppell. This policy should contain standard provisions which are generally applicable to
Coppell.
12
5.
DEVIATION FROM STANDARDS
It is intended that tho above functional classifications and design standards be used throughout
the City of CoppelL It is recognized that some exceptions may be necessary. For example,
special intersection treatments to provide left or right -turn lanes on collector streets may be
desirable. Also, design exceptions to accommodate the special needs of certain areas may be
necessary. Each potential exception should be carefully reviewed to determine if other
alternatives exist. This is particularly important for any proposals which would reduce
potential capacity offered by standard criteria.
13
APPENDIX A
TAP ZONE MAP
O
APPENDIX B
1986 AND 2010 DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
1986 DEMOGRAPHICS
9:03 MONDAY, MARCH 19, 1990 1
WEST SIDE
COPPELL
THOROUGHFARE PLAN
TAP2
1986
HOUSEHOLDS
BASIC
RETAIL
SERVICE
TOTAL
POPULATION
EMPLOYMENT EMPLOYMENT
EMPLOYMENT
EMPLOYMENT
37
0
0
0
0
28
28
42
902
395
244
0
29
273
45
559
209
209
96
133
438
149
56
19
202
40
40
282
150
106
36
286
63
93
442
151
1409
480
221
53
105
379
152
626
258
95
90
145
330
153
1024
351
234
376
642
1252
154
256
87
326
42
66
434
155
21
7
97
19
50
166
156
247
86
157
61
75
293
157
404
148
21
31
82
134
158
715
249
141
30
77
248
159
436
136
13
17
57
87
160
2499
890
0
0
0
0
161
1564
549
19
0
115
134
162
1346
420
12
0
73
85
163
1357
635
0
0
0
0
164
1004
342
69
373
0
442
165
1511
694
331
241
958
1530
166
1958
746
109
169
454
732
167
902
281
50
134
84
268
168
990
309
81
367
75
523
169
2523
953
56
271
31
358
170
1030
321
0
0
175
175
171
0
0
0
0
0
0
172
0
0
15
0
0
15
173
2661
896
85
343
118
546
174
3661
1142
0
0
0
0
175
832
259
0
0
0
0
188
21
7
0
0
0
0
191
1678
582
63
0
449
512
193
1040
346
47
8
9
64
194
2506
910
59
125
288
472
195
6962
2780
64
199
252
515
196
1686
561
1006
183
362
1551
197
3639
1402
3
15
8
26
198
0
0
0
1
0
1
199
0
0
3
7
12
22
213
938
386
132
154
238
524
214
1161
453
77
19
83
179
216
0
0
2024
199
212
2435
217
467
215
201
23
15
239
218
1061
524
215
234
503
952
219
1632
543
8
54
27
89
220
998
395
29
7
4
40
221
1.251
499
1
1
16
18
222
243
81
338
40
193
571
223
811
270
177
22
57
256
224
69
23
279
82
210
571
225
30
10
299
42
380
721
226
355
118
6
0
52
58
227
1553
630
9
65
60
134
1986 DEMOGRAPHICS 9:03 MONDAY, MARCH 19, 1990 2
WEST SIDE COPPELL THOROUGHFARE PLAN
TAPZ
1986
HOUSEHOLDS
BASIC
RETAIL
POPULATION
EMPLOYMENT
EMPLOYMENT
228
1553
630
9
65
229
677
228
26
361
230
99
33
7
70
231
829
310
28
82
232
1199
399
7
53
233
12
4
653
378
234
1039
528
846
219
237
1591
560
257
679
23-8
9 -54
251
2
14
239
446
174
16
120
240
12
4
87
21
241
1051
522
189
1
242
858
306
36
8
243
500
170
12
2
244
0
0
648
51
245
0
0
5425
147
246
0
0
4576
125
247
15
5
2839
77
248
0
0
1289
35
249
0
0
49
0
250
60
20
145-2
53
251
619
206
0
0
252
21
7
37
1
253
2826
1383
14
56
254
0
0
0
0
255
2826
1383
14
56
256
419
216
0
0
257
0
0
0
0
258
0
0
0
0
259
3634
1350
17
35
260
122
43
73
0
261
0
0
0
0
262
0
0
460
0
263
104
37
22
1
264
712
253
3
1
265
1692
730
63
63
266
95
34
0
0
267
20
7
0
0
268
3
1
0
0
269
57
20
85
0
270
14
5
0
0
271
579
202
0
0
272
959
336
114
0
273
0
0
0
22
274
632
226
442
24
275
2198
773
73
102
276
0
0
0
0
277
0
0
150
0
278
0
0
0
0
284
25
8
2
0
285
25
8
2
0
286
3
1
32
0
287
3458
1605
27
146
SERVICE
EMPLOYMENT
60
3
27
315
47
2492
547
12
18
121
242
167
260
60
121
214
178
182
49
13
1"
12
13
174
0
174
0
0
0
17
142
0
152
63
10
32
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
28
11
71
0
0
0
5
5
7
0
TOTAL
EMPLOYMENT
134
390
104
425
107
3523
1612
948
3-9
257
350
357
304
74
820
5786
4879
3098
1373
62
1693
12
51
244
0
244
0
0
0
69
215
0
612
86
14
158
0
0
0
85
0
0
114
50
477
246
0
150
0
7
7
39
173
3
1986 DEMOGRAPHICS
9 :03 MONDAY, MARCH 19, 1990
WEST SIDE
COPPELL
THOROUGHFARE PLAN
TAP2
1986
HOUSEHOLDS
BASIC
RETAIL
SERVICE
TOTAL
POPULATION
EMPLOYMENT EMPLOYMENT
EMPLOYMENT
EMPLOYMENT
288
10
3
3819
0
867
4686
289
1683
672
23
106
18
147
290
600
188
0
0
0
0
291
164
50
0
0
0
0
292
56
17
14
74
0
88
293
403
123
0
0
0
0
294
29
9
0
0
0
0
295
254
80
0
0
0
0
296
187
57
0
0
0
0-
297
317
99
0
0
0
0
298
94
30
403
0
92
495
301
157
49
1
0
8
9
306
5275
1685
735
10
380
1125
330
0
0
259
37
0
296
331
0
0
0
0
0
0
332
0
0
0
0
0
0
333
0
0
0
0
0
0
334
0
0
0
0
0
0
335
0
0
4
61
0
65
336
0
0
0
0
0
0
337
2317
941
1046
532
377
1955
342
14
5
99
33
27
159
343
0
0
46
15
13
74
344
0
0
0
0
11
11
345
0
0
0
0
0
0
363
0
0
857
0
60
917
364
0
0
9200
2987
3190
15377
366
0
0
535
13
14
562
367
0
0
0
0
0
0
368
0
0
0
0
0
0
369
0
0
0
0
0
0
370
0
0
0
0
0
0
371
0
0
218
0
286
504
511
596
246
480
0
5409
5889
512
977
389
11
33
164
208
513
718
252
91
7
104
202
517
617
217
6
0
109
115
518
0
0
36
436
65
537
519
983
345
20
94
262
376
520
546
214
357
28
346
731
521
938
329
0
0
0
0
522
961
337
0
0
0
0
523
145
51
501
0
0
501
526
1750
799
12
96
122
230
527
9
3
846
33
108
987
528
0
0
1494
136
1218
2848
529
0
0
12
0
0
12
530
0
0
469
600
2240
3309
531
0
0
738
121
258
1117
532
0
0
1187
295
709
2191
533
0
0
825
24
68
917
534
0
0
1942
52
73
2067
535
0
0
233
24
423
680
3
1986 DEMOGRAPHICS
9:03 MONDAY, MARCH 19, 1990 4
WEST SIDE
COPPELL
THOROUGHFARE PLAN
TAPZ
1986
HOUSEHOLDS
BASIC
RETAIL
SERVICE
TOTAL
POPULATION
EMPLOYMENT EMPLOYMENT
EMPLOYMENT
EMPLOYMENT
536
0
0
460
45
292
797
537
0
0
460
45
292
797
538
12
4
204
0
0
204
539
0
0
0
0
0
0
540
3678
1800
1860
975
4830
7665
541
0
0
2773
540
4926
8239
542
3754
1704
4650
134
754
5538
543
0
0
1114
55
495
1664
54-4-
15
�5
26
2-0
I-1-8
15-t--
545
9
3
0
0
0
0
546
0
0
0
0
28
28
547
2080
1047
504
227
1180
1911
548
1593
549
0
0
0
0
549
0
0
579
41
215
835
550
21889
9358
1673
1622
1080
4375
553
9866
4222
222
675
416
1313
556
3130
1309
4511
1429
12634
18574
618
43
17
2896
881
889
4666
619
78
31
10913
3479
4259
18651
620
0
0
2327
553
859
3739
621
38
20
2506
978
815
4299
622
0
0
1699
503
922
3124
623
848
425
2205
491
650
3346
624
90
34
732
289
558
1579
625
66
26
1193
346
594
2133
626
0
0
853
191
244
1288
646
623
333
3094
25
1110
4229
647
1812
969
2059
82
1112
3253
651
0
0
32
90
352
474
658
1246
555
3327
133
1396
4856
TAP 2010+
POPULATION
37
490
42
2617
45
1135
149
721
150
336
151
1704
152
756
153
1135 _ _- --
154
475
155
244
156
485
157
560
158
977
159
531
160
2779
161
2695
162
1457
163
2173
164
1964
165
2360
166
2228
167
979
168
1142
169
5767
170
2666
171
845
172
671
173
4571
174
4874
175
2122
188
684
191
3941
193
6183
194
5231
195
8182
196
2250
197
7599
198
221
199
4709
213
1268
214
2906
216
0
217
1657
218
1299
219
3293
220
1031
221
1549
222
276
223
851
224
75
225
31
226
360
227
1671
2010+ DEMO:;RAPHICS
WEST SIDE COPPELL TEfOROUGHFARE PLAN
HOUSEHOLDS
BASIC
RETAIL
EMPLOYMENT
EMPLOYMENT'
EMPLOYMENT
189
72
13
1221
359
34
444
334
148
278
236
41
127
474
67
611
295
57
322
103
104
914 _
2AA - -__
393
173
390
44
94
131
19
181
219
67
218
31
37
360
200
33
183
15
17
1029
53
0
1066
112
0
471
22
0
1012
63
0
771
140
380
1.089
440
246
888
133
174
317
58
137
377
91
374
2417
148
368
983
79
0
396
114
0
284
82
0
1702
143
349
1643
48
0
753
45
0
265
14
1
1523
243
14
2573
124
55
1961
59
141
3509
114
238
796
1129
235
2997
70
62
86
8
1
2048
1340
21
577
148
369
1409
107
24
0
2631
206
782
319
23
682
226
266
1369
137
406
438
48
7
685
6
35
99
397
403
305
300
22
27
315
85
11
386
44
129
42
0
723
33
868
13:23 WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1990
SERVICE
TOTAL
EMPLOYMENT
EMPLOYMENT
136
221
138
531
280
762
83
360
942
1483
377
729
145
352
-679
1317 -_
167
601
141
291
124
410
120
188
312
545
57
89
60
113
358
470
111
133
112
175
121
641
1092
1778
496
803
93
288
83
548
313
829
194
273
37
151
112
194
167
659
37
85
19
64
85
100
772
1029
9
188
288
488
581
933
390
1754
286
418
43
52
14
1375
244
761
89
220
232
3069
19
361
536
1028
3384
3927
4
59
137
178
196
996
57
379
214
614
380
810
55
97
65
966
1
13:23 WEDNESDAY, FEBRUKRY 28, 1990
SERVICE
TOTAL
EMPLOYMENT
2010+ DEMOG RAPHICS
65
966
WEST SIDE
COPPELL TJOROUGHFARE PLAN
TAPZ
2010+
HOUSEHOLDS
BASIC
RETAIL
2594
POPULATION
4033
EMPLOYMENT
EMPLOYMENT
228
1671
723
33
868
229
934
353
14
404
230
877
396
121
984
231
878
352
15
101
232
1502
538
89
1014
233
11
4
1099
441
234
1238
643
1463
231
237
1541
565
-2-95-
- _
238
718
257
2
19
239
568
254
34
136
240
11
4
108
32
241
1248
658
217
1
242
832
320
48
219
243
530
197
65
4
244
0
0
720
69
245
0
0
6568
147
246
0
0
6093
125
247
14
5
4449
98
248
0
0
2475
35
249
0
0
459
0
250
60
21
2923
55
251
610
213
2
0
252
20
7
139
2
253
3276
1668
66
373
254
0
0
0
0
255
3276
1668
66
373
256
5445
2652
0
0
257
0
0
0
1380
258
532
202
30
3
259
1520
565
26
735
260
5314
2047
134
250
261
0
0
700
0
262
0
0
400
0
263
655
248
5500
3
264
284
111
2000
3
265
1716
637
929
3
266
639
242
1740
18
267
0
0
0
480
268
2310
1044
91
35
269
3596
1708
307
100
270
255
0
0
0
271
0
0
0
660
272
0
0
0
1070
273
1619
602
257
100
274
2116
784
30
3
275
67
26
5
1
276
0
0
0
380
277
0
0
350
0
278
0
0
460
0
279
0
0
2250
0
280
0
0
1480
0
281
2462
1073
1740
3
282
548
208
1480
3
13:23 WEDNESDAY, FEBRUKRY 28, 1990
SERVICE
TOTAL
EMPLOYMENT
EMPLOYMENT
65
966
3
421
1426
2531
315
431
1491
2594
2493
4033
3133
4827
hf _
_ 1-057-
22
43
131
301
250
390
167
365
260
527
67
136
126
915
348
7063
178
6396
184
4731
56
2566
14
473
197
3175
12
14
17
158
274
713
0
0
274
713
0
0
0
1380
44
77
870
1631
21
405
1700
2400
0
400
191
5694
2510
4513
299
1231
210
1968
2178
2658
143
269
470
877
0
0
570
1230
1630
2700
438
795
44
77
3
9
580
960
0
350
0
460
0
2250
0
1480
22
1765
44
1527
2
TAP 2010+
POPULATION
283
0
284
2750
285
1131
286
2514
287
0
288
0
289
73
ZT1U
I5O6
291
3004
292
518
293
0
294
0
300
0
301
1150
302
0
303
527
304
527
305
504
306
5932
307
0
308
1537
309
2837
310
2086
311
775
312
1929
313
2282
314
178
315
500
316
431
317
3971
318
1588
321
400
326
10108
350
44
351
0
352
0
353
44
354
44
355
44
356
44
357
3118
362
471
363
455
364
227
365
43
383
94
384
0
386
0
387
0
388
0
389
0
390
0
391
0
2010+ DEMOGRAPHICS 13:23 WEDNESDAY, FEBRUIRY 28, 1990
WEST SIDE COPPELL T.- ;.OROUGHFARE PLAN
HOUSEHOLDS
BASIC
RETAIL
SERVICE
TOTAL
EMPLOYMENT
EMPLOYMENT
EMPLOYMENT
EMPLOYMENT
0
0
480
0
480
0
260
0
0
260
422
370
3
44
417
932
241
4
138
383
0
120
0
0
120
0
700
150
225
1075
31
25
30
50
105
-62-4
-- - 5-49-
-8 1 -
- -4&4
7 9 4 __
1136
151
136
135
422
280
2
2
23
27
0
180
0
0
180
0
1950
780
1865
4595
0
0
1100
1670
2770
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2040
3110
5150
243
393
1025
54
1472
243
393
1025
54
1472
230
125
490
750
1365
2726
92
147
112
351
0
0
1020
1564
2580
730
4508
0
904
5412
1208
74
112
55
241
785
104
343
49
496
259
13
33
10
56
632
40
143
10
193
746
8
7
10
25
66
8
7
10
25
173
8
7
10
25
148
16
7
49
72
1394
49
65
49
163
625
547
33
160
740
139
17
7
57
81
3382
1668
555
1674
3897
21
328
277
121
726
0
95
0
0
95
0
32
0
0
32
21
54
298
121
473
21
178
1364
205
1747
21
22
1630
2490
4142
21
10
76
60
146
1340
1279
1486
967
3732
222
137
532
232
901
216
80
429
181
690
108
11
76
78
165
20
4
19
0
23
38
968
6
450
1424
0
12475
2994
3349
18818
0
528
13
14
555
0
3
0
0
3
0
3
0
0
3
0
313
0
0
313
0
0
0
0
0
0
461
0
346
807
TAP
2010+
WEST SIDE
POPULATION
531
670
532
1001
533
928 .
537
620
538
0
539
1090
540
560
- --
91__
222
542
968
543
145
546
1839
547
9
548
0
549
0
550
0
551
0
552
0
553
0
554
0
555
0
556
0
557
0
558
11
559
199
560
7451
561
0
562
4002
563
0
564
1767
565
8
566
0
567
3666
568
2534
569
2827
570
32643
573
10848
576
6523
638
20
639
37
640
0
641
35
642
0
643
690
644
36
645
31
646
0
666
788
667
2096
671
0
678
1368
13:23 WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1990
SERVICE
2010+ DEMOGRAPHICS
WEST SIDE
COPPELL THOROUGHFARE PLAN
HOUSEHOLDS
BASIC
RETAIL
232
EMPLOYMENT
EMPLOYMENT
295
571
54
416
12
38
369
111
80
222
6
0
0
61
889
408
24
145
228
383
32
34-G
U -
D-
347
0
0
52
559
36
884
13
109
3
950
65
0
1785
532
0
84
706
0
794
1545
0
841
179
0
1368
378
0
952
557
0
2295
997
0
1219
133
0
1906
497
0
1906
497
4
233
0
80
16
3
3646
3128
2744
0
3861
1879
1914
6175
199
0
3216
885
952
108
81
3
46
428
0
21
174
1699
1524
1591
1075
16
164
1019
638
49
15087
1126
3109
4927
258
1270
3194
7023
4889
9
3140
2008
17
11943
4194
0
2555
609
20
2743
1071
0
1856
612
378
2551
1494
15
816
710
14
1419
1854
0
1200
1886
445
2658
66
1184
1764
101
0
28
97
653
2527
538
13:23 WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1990
SERVICE
TOTAL
EMPLOYMENT
EMPLOYMENT
6546
7171
182
232
257
448
109
115
68
1018
281
450
348
763
p--
0
0
0
595
129
251
175
1190
1965
4282
643
1433
5696
8035
271
1291
854
2600
133
1642
2003
5295
873
2225
3224
5627
3224
5627
0
233
4
23
9236
15108
8921
14661
937
7311
2973
7074
750
939
64
538
53
248
1924
5039
8
188
303
990
4824
9059
438
1966
22634
34546
3125
8273
5793
21930
1175
4339
990
4804
1384
3852
2690
6735
1487
3013
2240
5513
4681
7767
1672
4396
1463
3328
406
531
3008
6073
4
APPENDIX C
STANDARD CROSS - SECTIONS
AA- FREEWAY
0
d d ? n� ix
4au M.U.W.
DESIGN ELEMENT
Number of Lanes
Lane Widthjs (feet)
Right -of -Way Width (feet)
Design Speed (MPH)
Grade (percent)
Stopping Sight Distance (feet)
Horizontal Ourvature (min. radius. feet,
Vertical Clearance (feet)
Capacity (six lane. vpd) = 1oo,000
'Normal Cro�n
STANDARD
Minimtm
Desirable
Recommended
4
as required
as required
11
12
12
300
450
450
60
70
70
0.5 min.
4 max.
3 -4±
525 -650
625 -850
625 -850
1,100
x
1,900
15
16.5
16.5
FIGURE C -1
P6D- MAJOR ARTERIAL
J Y
< J
W
p W
CO uw111 I
DESIGN ELEMENT
Number of Lanes
Lane Widths (feet)
Right -of Way Width (feet)
Design Speed (MPH)
Grade (percent)
Stopping Sight Distance (feet)
Horizontal ourvature(min. radius, feet;
Vertical Clearance (feet)
Lateral Clearance (feet)
Median Opening Spacing (feet)
Capacity (v�pd) = 35.000
'Normal Crown
STANDARD
Minimim
Desirable
Recommended
6
6
6
11
12
12
100
110
110
40
50
50
0.5min.
6 max.
4-6+
275 -325
400 -475
400 -475
850
X
1200
15
15+
15+
2
6
6
300
530
500
FIGURE C -2
M -MINOR ARTERIAL
Y I Y
J J
a a
3 3
w w
v� 4 —LANES
70' R.O.W.
D5SIGN ELEMENT
Number of Lanes
Lane Widths (feet)
Right -of IWay Width (feet)
Design Speed (MPH)
Grade (percent)
Stopping jSight Distance (feet)
Horizontal Curvature (min. radius,
feet)'
Vertical Olearance (feet)
Lateral Clearance (feet)
Capacity I,(vpd) = 2o,000
'Normal Crown
STANDARD
Mk*mjrn
Desirable
Recommended
4
4
4
11
12
12
65
70
70
35
X
45
OS
6 max
4-8+
225 -250
325 -400
325 -400
450
1,000
11000
15
15+
15+
2
6
6
FIGURE C -4
JJ.
M -MINOi ARTERIAL
Y
J
Q
W
_0
MAIN LANES MEDIAN
24'
90' R.O.W.
DESIGN ELEMENT
Number of Lanes
Lane Widths (feet)
Right -of Way Width (feet)
Design Speed (MPH)
Grade (percent)
Stopping Sight Distance (feet)
Horizontal Corvature (min. radius, feet)
Vertical Clearance (feet)
Lateral Clearance (feet)
Median Opening Spacing (feet)
Capacity (vpo) = 25,000
"Normal Crov n
Y
J
Q
W
_C
MAIN LANES co
STANDARD
Mk*rnin
Desirable
Reco nmerKled
4
4
4
11
12
12
so
90
90
40
x
so
0.5 mh
6 max
4-$±
275 -325
400 -475
400 -475
800
x
11000
15
15+
15+
2
6
6
300
530
500
FIGURE C -3
M -MAJOR COLLECTOR
Y i Y
.j J
Q Q
W W
4 -LANES WITH CENTER TURN LANE
y �
DE IIGN ELEMENT
Number of Lanes
Lane Width$ (feet)
Right -of Wady Width (feet)
Design Speed (MPH)
Grade (percent)
Stopping Si0ht Distance (feet)
Horizontal Curvature (min. radius, feet)'
Vertical Clearance (feet)
Lateral Clearance (feet)
Continuous Deft Turn Lane Width (feet)
Capacity (vOd) = 2o,000
'Normal Cr
of n
NOTE: C4D may be substituted
STANDARD
Minimum
Desirable
Recommended
5
5
5
11
12
12
6o
90
90
35
X
45
0.5 min
6 max
4-6±
225 -250
325 -400
325 -400
450
670
670
15
15+
15+
2
6
6
12
14'
14'
FIGURE C -5
C4U -MAJOR COLLE&OR
Y
J
CO a
3
w
G 4 -LANES
R.O.W.
�ESIGN ELEMENT
Number of Lanes
Lane Widths (feet)
Right -of Way Width (feet)
Design Speed (MPH)
Grade (percent)
Stopping Sight Distance (feet)
Horizontal Curvature(min. radius.feet)
Vertical Clearance (feet)
Lateral Clearance (feet)
Capacity (vpd) - 20,000
'Normal Crown
i
Y
J
a
3
w
a
CO
STANDARD
Minimum
Desirable
Recomrnended
4
4
4
11
12
12
65
70
70
30
x
40
0.5 min
10 max
7 -40±
200 -275
275 -325
275 -325
450
670
670
15
15+
15+
2
6
6
FIGURE C -6
C2U- COLyECTOR
Y
J
Q
3
W
0
co
Y
J
Q
3
w
0
y
i
DESIG ELEMENT
2 —LANES
PARKING PERMITTED ONE SIDE
55' R.O.W
2 —LANES
PARKING PERMITTED BOTH SIDES
60' R.O.W.
Number of Lanes
Lane Widths (feet)
Right -of Warr Width (feet)
Design Speed (MPH)
Grade (percent)
Stopping Sight Distance (feet)
Horizontal COrvature (min. radius. feet)'
Vertical Clearance (feet)
Lateral Clearance (feet)
Capacity (vp�) = 10,000
'Normal Crown
Y
J
Q
3
w
0
co
STANDARD
Y
J
Q
3
w
0
Mirftu n
Desirable
Recommended
2
2
2
11
12
12
50
60
60
30
X
35
0.5
10
7 -10±
200 -225
225 -250
225 -250
300
450
450
15
15+
1st
2
6
6
FIGURE C -7
RESIDENTIAL
2 LANES
R.O.W.
II
DESIGN ELEMENT
Number of Lanes
Lane Wid�hs (feet)
Right -of Way Width (feet)
Design Speed (MPH)
Grade (percent)
Stopping Sight Distance (feet)
Horizontal) Curvature (min. radius,feetJ
Vertical Clearance (feet)
Lateral Clearance (feet)
Capacity �vpd) = 5,000
'Normal Crown
STANDARD
Minim=
Desirable
Recommended
2
2
2
11
12
11
50
50
50
25
X
30
0.5 min
15 max
4 -15±
150 -200
200 -225
200 -225
200
200
300
15
15+
15+
2
6
6
FIGURE C -8
APPENDIX D
INTERSECTION TREATMENTS
a �
Scale: V =100'
I I I I
I
II II
CA.
O
r
CD II II
01
II II �
II II
— _— Parkway
� r
I t t - - - - - - - -
-_
II �
b
I
I I I I
II �
I I I r
INTERSECTION TREATMENTS AT DENTON TAP /PARKWAY
I
FIGURE D -1
O
_ _Sandy Lae
v _
N
N
I
I I
I I
i
I I I
'I
II I I
24' 24'
�110'
INTERSE I TION TREATMENTS AT FREEPORT /SANDY LAKE
'I
FIGURE D -2
110`
61
3'
II
33'
II
II 7
►I
CL
i
i
I
Scale: 1'= 100'
II
II
CL
ml
v l
I I
1
_ _Sandy Lae
v _
N
N
I
I I
I I
i
I I I
'I
II I I
24' 24'
�110'
INTERSE I TION TREATMENTS AT FREEPORT /SANDY LAKE
'I
FIGURE D -2
1��
33' A 711 33'
a
$I II I
b III II II
Scale: 1'=100'
C TI 11
�I II
1 Ir
Sandy Lak
- N - - - - - - - - - - - - -
i
1 I II
1, FF_
1
II II
' II II
II II
II II
II II
�I
II II
INTERSECTION TREATMENTS AT DENTON TAP /SANDY LAKE
FIGURE D -3
i
a '
I
Scale: 1'= 100'
11
L.
0
I
Q.
m ,
1 I
I �
i � I
o I
to
1 r
a
Ii
I '�
to
I I
4' 7 24
1 1
TREATMENTS AT FREEPORT /BETHEL
FIGURE D -4
___ O
f�!!E
I` 0
0 I I
I I
Scale: 1' =100'
i f i
I i
_
Oethel I
r
-- —t- -- I 1 - -I
II I
'' II
I II II
I II II �
II II
3 ' 33'
TREATMENTS AT ROYAUBETHEL
FIGURE D -5
�� O
�I
a
Scale: 1 °= 100'
Bethel
II
1
II
II
I I ►
I
a ►►
C
c II
r
C
ml
II
�IIII
� t
- II
II
II
I
1
1
-I I
CL
�I
z
€I
I
o I
�I
�I
a
�I
z i
� I
bl
a
II
INTERSPCTION TREATMENTS AT DENTON TAP /BETHEL
FIGURE D -6
�- a
I
a
scale: 10=100'
0- 0
I
I
I
1
L
0
CL
m
m
L
U.
I
1
I I
0
� I
� I
i i I
z 1
I
0
Lo
A r I
-- Southwestern
t -- --
I I l
i
I
I
I
INTERSEC ION TREATMENTS AT FREEPORT /SOUTHWESTERN
FIGURE D -7
�' O
I
Scale: 1'= 10
i u GQC Cvi• Damn
I
INTER ECTION TREATMENTS AT ROYAL /GATEWAY
FIGURE D -8
,
�i' k4 W,
Scale: ,' -,00' I I I I
CL
c
II Il I
0� 1
I I 1 7J I
_- Ga eway -- I I I I� Belt Line _-
T
N
Z
it �I
0
to
II TI
t4i
a
II �I
z
II i
II �I
1 � 1
►! II
II II
INTERSECTIO TREATMENTS AT DENTON TAP /BELT LINE /GATEWAY
FIGURE D -9
O
a
Scale: 1 • =100'
� ► I j
c I I
n
m
m
,L ► ►
► I
► I
f N
Cm
- -► -- -�
I z
I
I.m
INTERSE TION TREATMENTS AT FREEPORT /GATEWAY
i
FIGURE D -10
54'
34' 17'
25'R 25'R
CO u
25'R 25'R
0
T
2 LANE LOCAL
10'
TREATMENT A
60' or 64'
40' or 44' 22'
10' 10'
30'R 30'R
NOTE : 35'R Should Be Used In
Commercial And industrial Areas.
! v a
30'R 30'R
4 LANE LOCAL
22' OR COLLECTOR
10' 10'
TREATMENT B
FIGURE D -1 1
INTERSECTION TREATMENTS
A AND B