RESO 1983-17 - Capital Improvements ProgramRESOLUTION D. 83- 17
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTSVILLE,
TEXAS, ADOPTING A CAPITAL 1MPROVR4ERIS PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes its responsibility to establish a long
range Capital Improvements Program; and
WHEREAS, the City Council intends to coordinate the construction of public
improvements in order to avoid duplication and maximize the effective use
of public funds; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the Capital Improvements Program at
a public hearing held thereon; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission has studied, debated and recommended
the adoption of the Capital Improvements Program;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
HUNTSVILLR:
THAT the Capital Improvements Program, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and
made a part hereof for all purposes, is adopted as a component of the
Comprehensive Plan of the City of Huntsville; and
THAT such Capital Improvements Program shall at all times be kept current
with regard to the needs of the City of Huntsville and reflective of the
official views of the City Council and shall be reviewed annually by the
City Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the A574ay of 1983.
haw, City Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
StAreldtG*2----
Scott Bounds, City Attorney
THE CITY OF HUNTSVILTP,
By
William V. Nash, Mayor
EXHIBIT
A
COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION
PLAN
Volume 4 of the Comprehensive Plan of Huntsville, Texas
CITY OF HUNTSVILLE, TEXAS
NOVEMBER 1983
William V. Nash, Mayor
Larry Corley
Murray A. Brown
Stephen Davis
Jerry L. Dowling
CITY COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMISSION
Mary Frances Park, Chairman
Candy Dixon
Earnest Grover, Jr.
Richard A. Hartley
CITY STAFF
Gene Pipes, City Manager
Dale Brown, Director of Planning
William Hodges
Percy Howard, Jr.
Jane Monday
Robert M. Tavenner
Joel E. Jeffcote
B. K. Marks
Bill McAdams
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEES
DATA BASE
William (Bill) Green
Vernon Sweeney
Gary Randazzo
Roy Williams
TRANSPORTATION
Max Schlotter
Clyde "Bo" Hall
Richard Hartley
Grady Manis
Frank Leathers
CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
Mary Frances Park
Jerry Nemec
Paul Mitchell
James Patton
assisted by the following City Staff Members:
Glenn Isbell, Director of Enyineeriny Design
David Farrar, Director of Public Safety
Johnny Poteete, Director of Public Works
David Smith, City Enyineer
Robert Smith, Director of Community Development
Boyd Wilder, Director of Public Utilities
LAND USE
Bruce Graviny
Robert M. Tavenner
Jerry Baker
Ed Davis
PUBLIC UTILITIES
Bill Knotts
Curtis Morris
Frank Robinson
HOUSING
Earnest Grover, Jr.
Huyh Barnett
Linda Schulz
IV
TRANSPORTATION
INTRODUCTION
It is the scope of this section of the Comprehensive Plan to analyze the
various transportation modes and recommend courses of action to insure
that the transportation system in Huntsville remains adequate.
Huntsville's current transportation system was examined, identifying
existing strengths, weaknesses and future needs. The basic
transportation modes affecting the area (air, bus, rail and automobile)
were analyzed to determine their current and future levels of
efficiency. An examination and evaluation was made of the City's
overall street and highway network, identifying the present and
potential problem areas, major traffic generators, the geometric nature
of the network and existing signalization schemes. In addition,
existing freight and passenger transit services were identified and
examined.
Thoroughfares
The thoroughfare system of a city is the principal means of movement of
people and goods. The streets and highways that comprise this system
are the carriers in this network. Their capacity is determined by size,
condition, routing and land usage to be served. A thoroughfare system
consumes large quantities of land and requires yreat amounts of the
community's income to construct and maintain. The system must,
therefore, be understood as basically established to serve one purpose -
- movement of people and goods between all parts of the community.
For the purpose of this study, the thoroughfare system in Huntsville has
been classified according to the function and to commonly applied
terminology. The classifications are as follows:
Expressways - a divided multi -lane arterial street desiyned
for rapid unimpeded movement of large volumes of traffic with
full control of access and yrade separations at intersections.
Expressways are not intended to provide direct access to
adjoining land.
Arterials - streets that serve major traffic movements. They
are primarily traffic carriers between various sections of the
City and form a network of through streets. Service to
abutting properties and access to these properties are
secondary functions.
Collector Streets - a street located within a neiyhborhood or
other integrated use area which collects and distributes
traffic from local streets and connects with arterial streets
or community facilities.
Local Streets - provide access to abutting property and
circulation for traffic within residential, commercial and
industrial areas and are designed for low-speed travel and
configured to discourage through traffic.
It should be noted that real-world actualities do not always observe
functionally efficient, textbook descriptions such as those above. Many
streets in Huntsville function as more than one of the above street
categories.
For the purposes of this study, analysis of the existing and future
street system of Huntsville will concentrate only upon the major
thoroughfares of the city; that is, expressways, arterials and collector
streets. The location of future residential streets will depend upon
the future design of subdivisions by private developers. By following
standards established in the Design Criteria Manual, future residential
streets can be fitted into the major street system of the City. The
proposed thoroughfare system contained in the future street system
Section of this study is the framework around and within which the
future development of Huntsville will be contained.
Existing Street System
The existing thoroughfare system of Huntsville is shown in Map 4-1:
EXISTING THOROUGHFARE SYSTEM. The primary traffic carriers of the city
are the National and State highways that serve the community.
Interstate 45, which ties Houston to Dallas, is located in the western
4 -4
part of the city; State Highway 19 (East Loop) is located at the extreme
east side of the city. U. S. Highway 75 passes through the center of
the city providing its primary north -south traffic corridor while State
Highway 30 (11th Street) runs due east -west joining U. S. Highway 190
and State Highway 19 to form the city's major east -west traffic
corridor. -
Additionally, the city is served by several State farm -to- market roads.
FM 2821 serves as the city's north loop. Connecting the downtown with
FM 2821 is FM 247 (Avenue M) running north -south from Highway 30.
Finally, the southwestern portion of the city is served by FM 1374
(Montgomery Road) while FM 3411 (Old Phelps Road) serves southeast
Huntsville.
The original plat of the City of Huntsville was based on a yrid street
pattern. As development continued, this pattern was extended where
possible in a somewhat modified form to fit the demands of local
topography. Although most of these local streets serve limited areas, a
few function as collector streets. Such is the case with Normal Park
Drive, Avenue 0, Avenue M (from 11th Street south), University Avenue,
Avenue F, Lake Road and Sycamore Avenue runniny north -south within the
city. East -west local collector streets are Eastham Drive, 10th Street,
12th Street through 17th Streets between Avenue M and Avenue J, and 22nd
Street. MAP 4 -1 also provides a designation for City owned streets
classifying them according to the standards adopted for streets in the
Design Criteria Manual.
Traffic Characteristics
The average daily traffic volumes for Huntsville's major streets are
illustrated in MAP 4 -2: TRAFFIC VULUME (1979) which contains the latest
information on traffic counts available from the Texas Department of
Hiyhways and Public Transportation. Traffic volume data, used to
identify trends for purposes of facility evaluation and improvement
priority establishment, is the key traffic characteristic in determining
the level of street
measure of flow and
usage efficiency. Volume is used as a "quantity"
is the number of vehicles that pass a point in a
given period of time. For the purposes of this study, the volume of
traffic is expressed in the average total number of vehicles per day (24
hour count). In terms of traffic volume, Table IV -1 provides, in
descending order, a list of the most heavily traveled streets in
Huntsville.
TABLE IV -1
THOROUGHFARE CLASSIFICATIONS AND VOLUMES
Street
I -45
S.H. 30 (11th Street)
U. S. 75 South
(Sam Houston Avenue)
S. H. 30 (from 11th St
to FM 2821)
Avenue H
U. S. 190
U. S. 75 N
(Avenue Q)
Sycamore Avenue
Avenue I
Lake Road
Avenue 0
Montgomery Road
FM 247
22nd Street
University Avenue
FM 2821
16th Street (East)
General Number 24 Hour Average
Classification of Lanes Traffic Volume
Expressway
Arterial
4
4
Arterial 4
Arterial
Collector
Arterial
Arterial
Collector
Local
Collector
Collector
Arterial
Arterial
Collector
Collector
Arterial
Collector
4 -6
2
2
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
18,000
15,500
14,000
6,740
7,260
6,740
6,080
5,420
5,420
4,980
4,3U0
4,010
3,850
3,280
3,142
2,760
2,630
0 4500 ft
MAP 4- 2
TRAFFIC FLOW
(1979)
VEHICLES / DAY
10,00Q
20.00
30,000
4 -7
Compare these counts to the theoretical capacities by classification
shown in Table IV-2, PRACTICAL TRAFFIC CAPACITIES.
TABLE IV-2
PRACTICAL TRAFFIC CAPACITIES
Minimum
Width of 24 Hour
Facility Lanes Lanes Volume Range
Expressway 4-8 60,000 to 160,000
Arterial 4-6 44 10,000 to 3U*000
Collector 2 22 2,000 to 5,000
Local 2 22 lUu to 500
Source: Harold Marks, TRAFFIC CIRCULATION PLANNING FOR
COMMUNITIES, Gruen Associates, Los Angeles, 1974,
A comparison of the average daily traffic counts on the most heavily
traveled streets in Huntsville in Table IV-1 with the practical traffic
capacities shown in Table IV-2 leads to the following conclusions.
1. 3. H. 30 /llth Street) is at or near capacity at the present time.
As traffic use continues to grow, speed on the street will decrease,
traffic "jams" will become more noticeable and frequency of accidents
will increase. Pavement width is at maximum for the existing ROW with
little prospect of acquiring additional right-of-way. It is likely that
the only means of alleviating future traffic problems will be to
redirect as much of the traffic as possible to other streets.
2. U. 3. 75 S (Sam Houston Avenue) is at or near capacity from S. H. 3U
to 22nd Street. The same conditions exists for this street as for S. H.
30, therefore, the same conclusions are appropriate.
3. Sycamore Avenue is nearing its capacity. Sycamore Avenue, however,
has one mitigating factor, it is an extra -wide street which, if all
on- street parkiny is removed, can allow it to carry traffic loads up to
the lower limits of an arterial street.
4. Avenue J is functioning as a collector street although originally
built to serve local residential functions only. Avenue J and Lake Road
are acting as one of the major entrances to SHSU. It is likely that
this situation will remain throughout the present planning period.
Traffic is likely to continue to grow along with the University.
5. Lake Road is another street that is nearing its capacity limits
according to its functional classification. However, this street, like
Sycamore, is built in excess of the standard width for collector
streets. Therefore, it is possible that this Street will be able to
handle traffic loads near to the minimum levels of an arterial street.
The mitigating factor for this street will be the hilly terrain over
which it runs.
6. Avenue 0 is another collector street nearing its capacity.
Unfortunately, this street was built to serve residential purposes only
and is, therefore, too narrow to allow much flexibility. It is also
interrupted at its intersection with 19th Street by an offset. Removal
of all on- street parking and re- design of the 19th Street intersection
will allow this street to continue to function as a minor collector
street for the near future. If traffic continues to grow, it is likely
complete reconstruction and wideniny of the street will be necessary.
Traffic Control
To obtain maximum efficiency and safety in any street system, modern
traffic control devices must be employed. Standard controls are traffic
signals, traffic signs and parking regulations.
Si ynal ization
Traffic signals are valuable devices for facilitating the safe and
efficient control of vehicular and pedestrian traffic and interchange.
In 1977, signals along Eleventh Street at Avenue 0, Avenue M, Sam
Houston Avenue and University Avenue were interconnected to provide
progressive traffic movement along Eleventh Street. These are the only
interconnected signals in the city at this time. Additional traffic
signals are located along Sam Houston Avenue (U.S. 75 S) at 13th Street,
16th Street, 17th Street, 20th Street, Avenue J - Lake Road, Avenue I,
F. M. 1374 and Sycamore Avenue. All are presently pre -timed but not
interconnected with other signals to provide progressive traffic flow.
Other signalized intersections with noninterconnected signals include
Avenue I and 20th Street, llth Street and U. S. 75 N, llth Street and
Avenue I and llth Street and I -4b.
The City of Huntsville, by letter dated December 16, 1980, requested the
assistance of the State Department of Highways and Public Transportation
in developing plans for synchroniziny the traffic signals on llth Street
and Sam Houston Avenue. As a result of this request, a field evaluation
of the existing signals was performed.
It is recommended that the City update the existiny siynals to standards
required by the Manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and
coordinate the signals for progressive movement of traffic. The
following is an evaluation of each intersection:
(1) US 75 N (Avenue Q) and 11th Street (SH30) - This siynal is a
traffic actuated signal. The loop on the north approach of US 75N
is out of service. It is recommended that the City install a new
loop on the north approach and place the siynal back in traffic
responsive operation.
(2) Eleventh Street from Avenue 0 to University Avenue - These
four signals are interconnected for coordinated movement of
traffic. No physical changes to the existiny siynals are required
or recommended at this time.
(3) Sam Houston (US 75) and 13th Street - The siynal equipment and
installation at this intersection are basically obsolete. A
totally new installation should be provided at this intersection.
It is recommended that 12 -inch heads for Sam Houston traffic and
8 -inch heads for the side street approaches horizontally mounted on
span wire be provided. This installation will require three new
steel strain poles since the southeast quadrant has an existing
steel pole. A three dial, fixed time secondary controller is also
suyyested.
(4) Sam Houston (US 75) and 16th Street - Although the signal
heads at this intersection are acceptable, improvements are
necessary to briny the installation into compliance with the MUTCU.
The existing installation does not meet the requirements that at
least one signal indication must be at least 4U feet from the stop
line of that approach. Also, the installation does not provide the
minimum of two signal indications for the side street approaches.
Therefore, it is recommended that a new box type, span wire signal
be installed along with horizontally mounted 12 -inch heads for Sam
Houston Avenue traffic and 8 -inch heads for the side street
approaches. A new three dial, fixed -time secondary controller is
recommended since the existing controller has served its useful
life and is obsolete. It is also recommended that 4 new steel
strain poles be placed at this intersection; it is unlikely the
existiny poles could handle the weiyht of the new installation.
(5) Sam Houston (US 75) and 17th Street - The offset of 17th
Street complicates the handling of cross - street traffic in a safe,
efficient manner. Also, the confiyuration of the existiny signal
installation does not lend itself to providing the most desirable
signal layout. Therefore, a new signal installation at this
intersection is recommended. All 12 -inch heads should be installed
and mounted vertically to enable positioniny the heads in the most
acceptable location. A protected left -turn for southbound traffic
turniny east to the University should be provided. Also
recommended is splitting 17th Street phasing (i.e., eastbound has
green and then westbound has a green). A left -turn green arrow is
suggested for both approaches on 17th Street to assure the motorist
that the movement is protected. A pedestrian signal indication is
included in the southern most crossing of the intersection. It
appears that several students cross at this location. The new
installation will require a three dial, secondary fixed -time
controller.
(6) Sam Houston (US 75) and 20th Street - No changes are
recommended for this intersection. The existing signal controller
is a three dial, fixed -time master controller with three time
clocks which can be utilized to coordinate the signals at the 13th,
16th, and 17th Street intersections. It can also be utilized to
coordinate these signals along with the four signals south at the
Lake Road, Avenue I, FM 1374 and Sycamore Street intersections if
the City elects to place all eight signals into one system.
(7) Sam Houston (US 75) and Lake Road - This intersection was
recently upgraded with a new master control box which will
eventually be interconnected with Avenue I, FM 1374 and Sycamore
Avenue. Left turn signals have been added to allow turning off of
Lake Road and Avenue J. Signals on Sam Houston Avenue were left
unchanged. Due to these recent changes, no further upgrading of
the intersection is necessary.
(8) Sam Houston (US 75) and Avenue I - It is recommended that the
12-iOch signals removed from the 16th Street intersection be
installed in lieu of the existing 8-inch heads at this intersection
for traffic on Sam Houston Avenue. They should be mounted
horizontally. The existing controller is an actuated Signal
Computer Corporation's Model 2000 controller. There is concern
whether or not this company still manufacturers controllers or
replacement parts. Also, this type controller cannot be
coordinated to a fixed-time controlled system. Replacing the
controller with a two or three dial, secondary fixed-time
controller is recommended.
(9) Sam Houston (US 75) and FM 1374 - The existiny controller
should be replaced with a two or three dial, secondary fixed-time
controller for the Sane reasons as outlined under Item U.
(10) Sam Houston (US 75\ and Sycamore Street - It is recommended
that the existing controller be replaced with a two or three dial,
secondary fixed-time controller since the existing controller is an
outdated obsolete model. It is also suggested that consideration
be given to replacing the pole in the northeast quadrant with one
Of the steel poles from the 16th Street intersection. The existing
pole was damayed durin8 an accident at this intersection.
(11) Coordination of Signals along Sam Houston Avenue - Items 3
through 10 outlined improvements which can be made at eight
intersections along Sam Houston Avenue in Huntsville. These
improvements will improve traffic operations at these individual
intersections, but will do little to upyrade flow of traffic along
Sam Houston Avenue. This can only be accomplished by
interconnecting the signals and coordinating the signals for
progression of traffic. It is recommended that coordination of the
signals be undertaken as soon as possible.
Other Forms of Traffic Control
In general, all the warning and regulatory signs in Huntsville are in
good condition and conform with standard requirements. Some parking
signs at various locations are missing from their post, in poor
condition or mounted too low. Except for State maintained routes, there
is limited use of pavement markings on City streets.
High Accident Locations
An analysis of the frequency of accidents and their location over the
last five years (Table IV -3: FIVE YEAR ACCIDENT SUMMARY) has shown a
general overall decrease in accidents and a spreading out of accident
locations resulting in a fewer number of accidents at any one location.
This is probably the result of the efforts on the part of the City in
the last few years to provide improved traffic control.
TABLE IV -3
FIVE YEAR ACCIDENT SUMMARY
ACCIDENTS
5 YR.
LOCATION TOTAL 1981 80 79 78 77
17th & Sam Houston 48 8 5 11 12 12
llth & Sycamore 47 13 14 17 4 19
13th & Sam Houston 37 7 10 16 5 9
16th & Sam Houston 33 9 7 - 7 10
llth & Avenue M 30 9 14 5 12 10
20th & Sam Houston 31 7 8 14 14 8
llth & Sam Houston 23 7 4 12 3 7
FM 2821 & Avenue M 25 7 12 - 9 7
Hwy 19 & FM 2821 23 8 12 12 - -
FM 1374 & I -45
(West Frontage Road) 18 1 1 5 9 12
TOTAL 315 66 58 52 55 84
Total Accidents 2615 464* 437 458 527 729
% of Total Accidents 12% 14% 13% 11% 10% 12%
* As of October, 1981
PROBLEMS IIV THE EXISTING STREET SYSTEM
A citizens advisory committee appointed by the Mayor of Huntsville met
during the spriny of 1982 to discuss the problems in the present street
system. Their conclusions, divided out between lony -term and short -term
problems are provided in Tables IV -4 and IV -5.
TABLE IV -4
Street System
LONG TERM STREET SYSTEM PROBLEMS
1. Lack of Through East -West Streets
2. Lack of Throuyh North -South Streets
3. Limited Overpasses Across I -45
4. Lack of Policy on Maintenance and Ownership of Streets in
newly annexed areas.
5. Lack of Policy on Street Paviny.
6. Lack of Policy on Construction of Sidewalks.
7. Lack of Policy on Growth of Trees and Vegetation in Public
Rights -of -Way.
8. Lack of Policy on Maintenance of Drainaye Channels.
TABLE IV-5
Street System
SHORT TERM STREET SYSTEM PROBLEMS
Problem Examples
Inadequate Arterial Streets
Inadequate Collector Streets
Congested Streets
Off -Set Streets
Truck Traffic
Insufficient Parking
Excessive Curb Cuts
Traffic Circulation
Regulatory Signaye
Avenue M (11th St. to 2821)
Hwy 75N (11th St. to I -45)
Hwy 30 (I -45 West)
FM 2821 (North Loop)
Montgomery Road (FM 1374)
10th Street
Avenue 0
22nd Street
Lake Road
15th Street
llth Street
Sam Houston Avenue
Avenue 0 (at 19th St.)
17th Street (at Sam
Houston Avenue)
Location of Terminals
through traffic on- street
Loading /Unloading
Downtown
SHSU
Sam Houston Avenue
llth Street
SHSU
TUC
Various Locations
Hazardous Intersections Avenue I and Sam
Houston Avenue
THE FUTURE THOROUGHFARE SYSTEM
Efficient and safe transportation of people and goods constitutes one of
the most important elements in the growth of the City. The future
thoroughfare plan for the Huntsville area is shown on MAP 4 -3: FUTURE
THOROUGHFARE SYSTEM. This systern was devised to serve the various
patterns of growth projected in the land use study and to provide the
most convenient and expeditious routes of travel throughout the
Huntsville area.
To further expedite the flow of traffic, specifically truck traffic, a
routiny system for through truck traffic has been developed to
complement the future thoroughfare system. MAP 4 -4: THROUGH TRUCK AND
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ROUTE displays the recommended system. Upon
completion of the proposed West Belt, this route will be added to the
system.
PUBLIC TRANSIT
At the present time Huntsville is without a public transit system. It
is doubtful if the future population of Huntsville can support an
effective transit system due to the low density of the Huntsville area
and the estimated population size. It may be possible, however, that a
limited system running between an area of a very hiyh concentration of
population such as SHSU and an area of concentrated retail
establishments such as the Central Business District could receive
sufficient use to remain viable.
4 -20
MAP 4-4
THROUGH TRUCK AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIAL ROUTE
HUNTSVILLE, TEXAS
4 -21
BUS
The Continental Trailways Bus Company provides the Huntsville area with
intercity and State bus transportation. Present service includes 17
daily stops. Both freight and passenyer services are available, the
former averaging approximately 50 passengers per day. Unfortunately,
due to the limited facilities available in the city, many maneuvers of
the busses to position themselves for loading and unloading of
passenyers occur on 3a0 Houston Avenue. As traffic volume on this street
continues to increase, this situation will become more of a problem.
AIR
The municipal airport is located on the east side of 1-45 in the
northwest quadrant of the city. The facility handles some commercial
and private air traffic but no major commercial fliyhts presently enter
the area.
RAILROAD
A spur line extendiny across the eastern portion of Walker County
provides Huntsville with its only rail service. The major rail line is
located approximately 9 miles east of the City with a terminal located
at Phelps. In 1981, an estimated 25 carloads per week were sent out
from Huntsville while approximately 15 carloads per week were unloaded
in the City. Six days per week service is available with a Palestine
destined train oriyinatiny in Huntsville each Monday, Wednesday and
Friday, returning the next day.
Current terminal facilities are in a declining state. The terminal
located on Avenue J between 14th and 15th Streets requires freight to be
delivered almost downtown in cramped, outdated facilities. Trucks
delivering or picking up freight are requested to travel often indirect
routes on streets not designed to carry truck traffic, to arrive at the
terminal. If use of the railroad is to continue to grow in Huntsville,
it is unlikely that these facilities can continue to provide adequate
service. A more viable situation would be the relocation of the freight
facilities adjacent to State Highway 19 and Dearkat Boulevard.
MOTOR FREIGHT
Central Freiyht Lines is the area's largest trucking firm, with
additional freight services available from Red Arrow Freight Lines,
U -Haul, Inc., Ryder Truck Rental One -way, Inc. and Missouri Pacific
Transport. Morning and afternoon schedules to Houston and Dallas link
the Huntsville area with national connections. Local warehouses are
maintained by each of these freight lines.
PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE TRANSPORT
Walking and bicycling nave continued to hold an important place in the
movement of people in Huntsville. Due to the size of the city it is
still possible to transverse the city either by walking or bicycling.
Unfortunately, few facilities exist within the city to encourage either
form of movement. No designated bicycle lanes exist and sidewalks,
except in the downtown area, are intermittent. Therefore, a system is
recommended to coordinate these two forms of movement and to insure the
safety as much as possible of those who use these methods.
WATER TRANSPORT
Huntsville does not have direct access to waterway traO3poFtatioD^
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. It is recommended that the City formally adopt the future
thoroughfare plan of the City of Huntsville as displayed in MAP 4-3:
FUTURE THOROUGHFARE SYSTEM of the Comprehensive Plan.
2. It is recommended that the City formally adopt and implement by
ordinance routes for through trucks and hazardous materials. The
recommended routes are displayed on MAP 4-4: THROUGH TRUCKS AND
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ROUTES. Funds should be appropriated at the time of
Ordinance passage for necessary SigDdge.
3. It is recommended that the City prohibit blocking of traffic lanes
by delivery trucks. This problem is especially acute along Sam Houston
Avenue and llth Street. It is suggested that the City require back door
delivery where feasible; where not feasible, designated
loading/unloading areas adjacent to the curb 3hOUlU be provided. It is
also recommended that, where curbside load zones are provided, that they
be designated for specific time periods and uses and that the
regulations be strictly enforced.
4. It is recommended that the City remove all unnecessary hindrances
to traffic flow along its collector streets. Hindrances include
inappropriate or unnecessary stop signs, dips, and rough or bumpy
driving surfaces and blocked sight triangles.
5. It is recommended that the City devise and adopt formal policies
related to the following:
(a) maintenance and ownership of streets in newly
annexed areas;
(b) street paving;
(c) construction of sidewalks;
(d) growth and control of vegetation in public
rights -of -way;
(e) maintenance of drainage channels.
6. The City in cooperation with the Downtown Merchants and the Chamber
of Commerce should undertake a study to determine the economic
feasibility of providing off - street parking facilities in the downtown
area.
7. In cooperation with SHSU, the City should develop a traffic
circulation and parking plan for the area adjacent to the University.
8. In cooperation with TDC, the City should develop a traffic
circulation and parking plan for the area adjacent to the Walls Unit.
9. It i3 recommended that the City adopt more detailed standards for
the design and placement of driveways, especially commercial driveways.
It is also recommended that all private driveways built within public
street rights-of-way and connected to paved streets be required to be
surfaced with either asphalt or concrete.
10. It is recommended that the City continue to pursue the development
Of an economically feasible Airport Master Plan.
11. It is recommended that the City institute a program for reviewing
the adequacy of rights-of-way for existing streets and, where
inadequate, to obtain the additional necessary rights-of-way.
12. It is recommended that the City stay abreast of the developments in
rapid rail and mass transit facilities for this region and insure
HVntsVillS'S participation whenever possible.
13. It is recommended that the City adopt and implement, through a
Capital Improvements Program, the projects listed in the following:
CAPITAL NEEDS INVENTORY. Included in this list is a prioritization of
each project and a generalized timetable for completion.
CAPITAL NEEDS LIST: TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES
Priority Description
1*
2*
3*
Widen State Highway 30 to four (4) lanes
(curb and gutter) with a center turn lane
from I -45 to the City Limits
Widen U.S. 75 N to four (4) lanes (curb and
gutter) with a center turn lane from llth
Street (State Highway 30) to I -45
Widen FM 1374 to four (4) traffic lanes
with a center turn lane from U.S. 75 S to
City limits
4* Widen FM 247 to four (4) traffic lanes from
State Highway 30 to FM 2821
5* Redesign and reconstruct the intersection
of S.H. 30, U.S. 190, and Sycamore Avenue
6 Upgrade the traffic signals along llth
Street and Sam Houston Avenue as
recommended in the Comprehensive Plan
according to the following Schedule:
(a) U.S.75(N) and llth Street;
(b) Sam Houston Ave. and 13th Street;
(c) Sam Houston Ave. and 16th Street;
(d) Sam Houston Ave. and 17th Street;
(e) Sam Houston Ave. and Avenue I;
(f) Sam Houston Ave. and FM 1374;
(g) Sam Houston Ave. and Sycamore.
7 Coordination of Signals along Sam Houston
Avenue
*or in accordance with schedules established by the Texas Department of
Highways and Public Transportation.
4 -27
TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL NEEDS LIST
Priority Description
8 Acquire rights -of -way for future streets
listed below:
(a) 16th Street
(1) from Avenue Q to I -45
(2) from State Highway 19 to FM 2929
(b) Roans Ferry Road from 9th Street to
FM 2821
(c) 10th Street
(1) from U.S. 75 to Normal Park
(2) from Avenue F to Roans Ferry Road
(d) Avenue F from 3rd Street to FM 2821
9
10
11
12
Resurface 10th Street from U.S. 75 N to
University Avenue
Resurface Avenue 0 from 11th Street to 22nd
Street
Eliminate the offset street intersections
at the following locations:
(a) Avenue 0 and 19th Street
(b) 17th Street and Sam Houston Avenue
(c) Avenue I anad 12th Street
(d) University Avenue and 8th Street
Widen U.S. 75 S to four (4) traffic lanes
(curb and gutter) with a center turn lane
from State Highway 19 to I -45
13 Redesign and rebuild the Avenue I -Sam
Houston Avenue intersection to provide as
nearto a 90 degree intersection as
possible
14 Extend 16th Street from Avenue Q to I -45
15 Extend Avenue F from 3rd Street to FM 2821
16 Extend 10th Street westward from U.S. 75 N
to I -45
17 Extend 10th Street eastward from Avenue F
to Roans Ferry Road
18 Extend Bearkat Blvd. eastward from State
Highway 19 to intersect with FM 2929
19 Widen and pave Roans Ferry Road to
collector street standards
4 -28