Temple Mobility Master Plan Appendix C

Temple Mobility Master Plan Scenario Planning Technical Memo April 2022

City of Temple Mobility Master Plan

CONTENTS

Contents 1 Introduction to scenario planning .................................................................................................................. 4 Process 4

Scenarios Introduction 4

Scenarios 1-3: Vehicular Transportation 5 Introduction 5 Scenario 1: Systemwide Traffic Signal and Intersection Optimization 5

Introduction 5 Methodology/Analysis 6 Study Area Outputs (Intersection Performance Summary) 10

Regional Metrics Summary 10

Scenario 2: Systemwide Roadway Improvements 12 Introduction 12 Methodology/Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 12 Intersection Outputs (Roadway Performance Summary) .................................................................... 14 Regional Metrics Summary 14

Scenario 3: Regional Connectors ............................................................................................................ 16 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 16 Methodology/Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 16 Regional Metrics Summary .................................................................................................................. 17

Scenario 4: Transit Vision ........................................................................................................................... 20 Introduction 20 Methodology 20 Guiding Principals 20 What is Microtransit? 22 Alternatives 22 Planning Level Cost Estimation 27 Key Findings 27

Scenario 5: Active Transportation Improvements 29

Introduction 29 Methodology 29 Project Review 29 Context Review 29 Analysis 29 Project Review 29 Context Review .................................................................................................................................... 30 Outputs (Context Locations) .................................................................................................................... 33 Key Findings ............................................................................................................................................ 37

Scenario 6: Emerging Technology & TSMO ............................................................................................... 38 Introduction 38

Methodology 38

Temple/KTMPO Policies and Programs 39

Industry Best Practices Policies and Programs 40

Analysis 42

Outputs 42 Key Findings 43

APPENDIX A: Scenario 1 44

TABLES

Table 1: FHWA Level of Service Criteria 5

Table 2: Scenario 1 Recommended Intersection Improvements and Impact on LOS ................................. 7

Table 3: Scenario 1 - 2045 Intersection Performance in Temple Region 10

Table 4: Total Regional Delay and Percent Change in Delay 11

Table 5: Scenario 2 Deficient Intersections AM ....................................................................................... 12

Table 6: Scenario 2 Deficient Intersections PM 12

Table 7: Scenario 2 Recommended Intersection Improvements and Impact on LOS 13

Table 8: Scenario 2 Delay and Percent Change in Delay .......................................................................... 14

Table 9: Total Regional Delay and Percent Change in Delay 14

Table 10: Regional Arterial Connectors Included in Scenario 3 16

Table 11: Additional Improvements Included in Scenario 3........................................................................ 17

Table 12: Total Regional Delay and Percent Change in Delay 17

Table 13: Temple Subarea 2045 No Build Roadway Capacity Measures 17

Table 14: Temple Subarea 2045 Scenario 3 Roadway Capacity Measures .............................................. 17

Table 15: Temple Subarea 2045 No-Build Level of Service (LOS) 18

Table 16: Temple Subarea 2045 Scenario 3 Level of Service (LOS) 18

Table 17: Scenario 3 Key Impacts .............................................................................................................. 18

Table 18: Capital and Operating Costs by Alternative 27

Table 19: Trail Crossing Gaps and Potential Connections 29

Table 20: Active Transportation Gaps and Potential Connections ............................................................. 30

Table 21: Best Practices for Emerging Technologies, Mobility Solutions, and Data Management 40

Table 22: Scenario 1 Deficient Intersections AM 44

Table 23: Scenario 1 Deficient Intersections PM ................................................................................... 46

FIGURES

Figure 1: Scenario 1 Intersections Recommendations ................................................................................. 7

Figure 2: Temple Subarea Level of Service 2045 No Build Conditions 19

Figure 3: Temple Subarea Level of Service 2045 Scenario 3 19

Figure 4: Circulator vs. Bi Directional Comparison ..................................................................................... 21

Figure 5: Capital and Operating Cost by Alternative 27

Figure 6: Minor Arterial Sidewalk Options 31

Figure 7: Neighborhood Collector Sidewalk Options .................................................................................. 31

Figure 8: Urban Avenue Sidewalk Options 31

Figure 9: Community Collector Bike Lane Options 32

Figure 10: Bicycle Boulevard Bike Lane Options ........................................................................................ 32

Figure 11: Neighborhood Connector Trails Option 32

City of Temple Mobility Master Plan

Figure 12: Thoroughfare Connector Trails Option ...................................................................................... 32

Figure 13: In Park Trails Option 33

Figure 14: Intersection Design Enhancement Example 33

Figure 15: Scenario 1 Deficient Intersections. ............................................................................................ 44

Figure 16: Before AM - I-35 - Adams/Central/Airport 48

Figure 17: After AM I 35 Adams/Central/Airport 48

Figure 18: Before PM I 35 Adams/Central/Airport ................................................................................. 49

Figure 19: After PM I 35 Adams/Central/Airport 49

Figure 20: Before AM 31st at 363/190/Dodgen Loop 50

Figure 21: After AM 31st at 363/190/Dodgen Loop ................................................................................ 50

Figure 22: Before PM 31st - at 363/190/Dodgen Loop 51

Figure 23: After PM 31st at 363/190/Dodgen Loop 51

Figure 24: Before AM Adams Ave and Hilliard/Old Waco ..................................................................... 52

Figure 25: After AM Adams Ave and Hilliard/Old Waco 52

Figure 26: Before PM Adams Ave and Hilliard/Old Waco 53

Figure 27: After PM Adams Ave and Hilliard/Old Waco ........................................................................ 53

City of Temple Mobility Master Plan

INTRODUCTION TO SCENARIO PLANNING

A significant component of developing a Mobility Master Plan involves analyzing multiple scenarios of priority, investment, benefit, and application in order to assess reasonable recommendations for the transportation network. Scenario Planning provides an avenue to visualize outcomes across the spectrum of goals and community vision including transportation, economics, and social equity. The scenario analysis used performance measures to analyze the community return on investment and trade offs of alternative transportation investments, programs, policies, and other actions under a variety of possible future conditions or trends. Each mode of transportation being evaluated is dynamic and adheres to different internal and external influences. With those elements under consideration, each scenario was developed to be tailored to the mode being evaluated within Temple, leading to different analysis process and measures.

Process

Elements of the Comprehensive System Assessment and community input were used to identify gaps and needs in the transportation network. With this base understanding of the network and the identified vision, goals, and objectives of the community, six scenarios were developed for analysis. Each of these scenarios takes an individual approach to evaluation, although there are common elements throughout. As part of the development process, the Project Team, key city staff, and the Steering Committee were involved in the development, refinement, and confirmation of the scenarios.

Scenarios Introduction

Scenario 1: Systemwide Traffic Signal and Intersection Optimization: Optimize traffic signals and intersection performance by identifying improvements to intersection with a level of service (LOS) of D or lower.

Scenario 2: Systemwide Roadway Improvements: Analyze and identify Improvements to roadway segments with an LOS of D or lower.

Scenario 3: Regional Connectors: Analyze major arterial roadways or higher to identify potential improvements to cross town and regional trips.

Scenario 4: Transit Vision: Review for additional access and transit mode choice improvements to communities.

Scenario 5: Active Transportation Improvements: Analysis of how the addition of active transportation facilities / infrastructure benefits the character of the community and the quality of place as well as the health and well being of the community.

Scenario 6: Emerging Technology & TSMO: Potential impacts (curbside management, parking restrictions/access, delivery) on the transportation network, the City, and the region based on new policy or program recommendations such as car sharing, bike sharing or scooter programs

The following sections provide in depth definition of each scenario, the methodology used in the analysis process, the outputs and key findings that will be carried into the recommendation phase of the development of the Master Mobility Plan.

Temple Mobility Master Plan Scenario Planning Technical Memo

Temple Mobility Master Plan Scenario Planning Technical Memo

SCENARIOS 1-3: VEHICULAR TRANSPORTATION

Introduction

In support of the Temple Mobility Master Plan, a series of scenario based planning analyses were performed to examine, test, and compare alternative solutions that address the existing and anticipated future deficiencies identified in the comprehensive transportation system assessment. The first three scenarios build upon each other through the analysis process, exploring the operational performance of the future 2045 forecast roadway network of the Temple study area.

Scenario 1 focused on the review of deficiently performing intersections in the area. Scenario 2 focused on the review of deficiently performing roadway segments assuming recommendations from Scenario 1 were “implemented”. Scenario 3 built upon Scenario 1 and 2 networks to evaluate the performance of existing and proposed regional connections.

In order to define recommendations that are proactive for future decencies and demand, this scenario analyses used a more aggressive scale for LOS to evaluate deficient intersections and roadways in Scenario 1 and 2. Unlike the typical grouping of A D (acceptable) and E F (deficient), these scenarios grouped A C as acceptable, and D, E and F as deficient.

The following sections provide further detail of the data used, methodology and analysis, outputs, and key findings of each of these scenarios.

Scenario 1: Systemwide Traffic Signal and Intersection Optimization

Introduction

The operational performance review of Scenario 1 focused on the review of deficiently performing intersections in the area. Intersection deficiencies were communicated by the LOS metric that measures the overall delay that drivers experience at an intersection. For this scenario analysis the acceptable LOS was changed to D through F, unlike the traditional acceptable LOS of C through F.

LOS is communicated by letter grades, where A, B, and C indicate acceptable performance and D, E, and F indicate deficient performance. The LOS is based on average control delay criteria set by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Highway Capacity Manual as displayed in Table 1 Table 1: FHWA Level of Service Criteria

The deficient intersections were reviewed in three incremental steps to demonstrate the perceived benefit of each conceptual phase to the region. The three phases that were reviewed as part of Scenario 1 were:

No Build – future 2045 conditions with no additional improvements, • Signal Optimization – optimize the signal timing and phasing of signals in the Temple study area,

• Standard Intersection Improvements – provide intersection improvements such as approach lanes or turn bays to the deficient traffic signals.

City of Temple Mobility Master Plan

Temple Mobility Master Plan Scenario Planning Technical Memo

The outcomes of the conceptual phases were intended to communicate the overall benefit to the region resulting from the different improvements being analyzed. The products from this approach can be used to gauge whether the conceptual improvements from this planning exercise indicate just cause to make investments towards achieving these improvements by seeing the corresponding benefit. After applying signal optimization and standard intersection improvements, the remaining deficiently performing traffic signals in the area will be used to guide the analysis performed as part of Scenario 2. Scenario 2 will focus on combining the intersection improvements from Scenario 1 with additional roadway segment improvements to improve the regional operational performance.

Methodology/Analysis

TravelDemandModelDemographics

The 2045 forecast demographics of the Killeen Temple Metropolitan Planning Organization (KTMPO) regional travel demand model were reviewed and updated to include projected residential and commercial developments that may have been planned after adoption of the regional model. This step was taken to ensure that the forecast trip information output from the travel demand model would reasonably represent future travel of the region and could be used as an input into the TransModeler simulation. These additional development plans in the Temple area were identified by City of Temple staff and stakeholder input. Each development location identified to evaluate if the KTMPO regional travel demand model adequately captured the additional anticipated growth.

TransModeler

TransModeler simulation software was used for traffic analysis of the 2045 future conditions. TransModeler analysis was performed for AM and PM peak hour time periods, as peak hour traffic represents the most critical period for traffic operations and has the highest roadway capacity requirements. The TransModeler simulation was updated based on the output from the regional travel demand model and was used to model the No Build condition to serve as a baseline for which to evaluate the signal optimization and intersection improvements. The TransModeler No Build condition included present day conditions and signal timings provided by the City of Temple where available.

Intersections with deficient LOS (LOS D or worse) were identified in the No Build condition as points of interest for signal optimization and intersection improvement recommendations. First, using the same network from the No Build scenario, signal timings were optimized at signalized intersections throughout the network by assessing the signal timing and phase cycles in order to reduce the overall intersection delay to increase the flow of traffic through the intersection. Then, at intersections that still had deficient LOS after signal optimization, further intersection improvements were recommended.

IntersectionImprovements

Based on the criteria described in the previous section, 33 intersections were identified for further recommendations. These included improvements such as additional intersection approach lanes, turn bays, upgrading from stop signs to traffic signals, and modifying the intersection geometry into the network to measure the improvement to the intersections. The location of these intersections are displayed in Figure 1.

City of Temple Mobility Master Plan

Temple Mobility Master Plan Scenario Planning Technical Memo

Figure 1: Scenario 1 Intersections Recommendations

Table 2 shows the recommended intersection improvements that were implemented in addition to the signal optimization in order to improve the intersection delay and LOS. The impact of the improvements at the intersections are communicated for the AM and PM peak hours separately. The following provides a description of the type of impact used in this evaluation process.

• Significant indicates the intersection improvements resulted in the intersection improving to an acceptable LOS.

• Moderate indicates there was a measurable improvement to the intersection, but it was not substantial enough to progress the intersection to an acceptable LOS. While not an acceptable LOS, this does include intersections that went from a LOS F to an improved LOS E or D, which is a meaningful improvement to the intersection.

• Minor indicates that the resulting improvement to the intersection was minor in terms of reducing the overall delay at the intersection that does not result in LOS letter grade change.

Temple Mobility Master Plan Scenario Planning Technical Memo

ID Intersection Recommended Improvement Impact AM Impact PM

Add traffic signal

3

IH 35 NB Frontage & Hart Rd

Significant Significant 4

IH 35 SB Frontage & Hart Rd

Add traffic signal

Significant Significant 5

Loop 363/Young Ave & FM 438

Add left turn lane northwest bound, add left-turn lane southbound, and add traffic signal

Significant Significant 6

FM 93 & Hartrick Bluff Rd

Add right turn lane northbound and left turn lane westbound

Significant Moderate 7

Loop 363 & Pegasus Dr

Remove north leg (southbound approach) (updated to match current conditions)

Significant Moderate 8

Loop 363 SB Frontage & SH 36

Update northwest bound geometry to show left turn lane, southeast bound geometry to show right turn lane, and southwest bound to show right turn and left turn lane (updated to match current conditions)

Significant Moderate 9

Loop 363 WBFR & Wendland Rd

Add left turn lane northbound and add traffic signal Intersection included in TxDOT Waco District W35 07. Coordinate with district.

Significant Moderate 10

Old Hwy 95 & FM 93

Due to intersection experiencing high crash occurrences, recommendation is add a traffic signal.

Significant Moderate 11

3rd St/1st St & Adams Ave

Add right turn lane southbound

Significant Minor 12

FM 2305 & Hilliard Rd/Old Waco Rd

Add right turn lane and keep shared thru/right lane northbound

Significant Minor 13

Cearley Rd/Twin Oaks Dr & SH 53

Update northwest bound geometry to show left turn lane, update southbound geometry to show right turn lane, and update southeast bound geometry to show left turn lane (updated to match current conditions). Add right turn lane northbound and add signal

Moderate Significant 14

Loop 363 EBFR & Wendland Rd

Add left-turn lane southbound and add traffic signal Intersection included in TxDOT Waco District W35-07. Coordinate with district.

Moderate Significant 15

Loop 363 NB Frontage & Industrial Blvd

Add left turn lane southeast bound and add traffic signal Intersection included in TxDOT Waco District W35 07. Coordinate with district.

Moderate Significant

Temple Mobility Master Plan Scenario Planning Technical Memo

ID Intersection Recommended Improvement Impact AM Impact PM

16

Loop 363 NB Frontage & SH 36

Update southeast bound geometry to show left turn lane, northwest bound geometry to show right turn lane, and northeast bound to show right turn and left turn lane (updated to match current conditions) Intersection included in TxDOT Waco District W35 07. Coordinate with district.

Moderate Significant

17

IH 35 NB Frontage & 31st St/Nugent Ave

Update northbound geometry to show left turn lane and right turn lane (updated to match current conditions). Add traffic signal Moderate Moderate 18

IH 35 SB Frontage & Nugent Ave

Update southbound geometry to show left turn lane and right turn lane and update eastbound geometry to show thru lane (updated to match current conditions). Add traffic signal

Moderate Moderate 19

Loop 363 SB Frontage & Industrial Blvd

Add left turn lane northwest bound and add traffic signal Moderate Moderate 20 Young Ave & Shell Ave

Add right turn lane southwest bound Moderate Moderate 21 31st & Ave D Add traffic signal Moderate Minor 22 31st St & Ave H Add right turn lane northbound and add right turn lane westbound Moderate Minor 23 57th St & IH 35 SB Frontage

Add shared left/thru lane southwest bound Moderate Minor 24

IH 35 SB Frontage & Midway Dr

Add left turn and right turn lane southwest bound Minor Significant 25

31st St & Loop 363 WB Frontage

Update northbound geometry to show dual left turn lanes, and update southbound geometry to show extended right turn lane (updated to match current conditions)

Minor Moderate 26

Loop 363/SH 95 & US 190/SH 36 NB Frontage

Update northeast bound geometry to show left turn lane, southbound geometry to show right turn lane, and add traffic signal (updated to match current conditions)

Minor Moderate 27

Loop 363/SH95 & US 190/SH 36 SB Frontage

Update southeast bound geometry to show right turn lane, southwest bound geometry to show left-turn lane, and add traffic signal (updated to match current conditions)

Minor Moderate 28 Nugent Ave & Cearley Rd

Update geometry for all approaches to show left turn lane (updated to match current conditions) Minor Moderate 29 1st St & Ave H Add left turn lane southbound and right turn lane westbound

Minor Minor

30 31st St & Ave M Add right-turn lane northbound

31 31st St & Ave R

32 31st St & Canyon Creek Dr

Update to northbound geometry to show right turn lane, update geometry to show eastbound approach, and update westbound lane configuration to 1 left turn, 1-thru, and 1 right turn (updated to match current conditions)

Minor Minor

Minor Minor

Update eastbound geometry to show shared thru/left lane (updated to match current conditions) Minor Minor

33 Adams Ave & 31st St Add left turn lane northbound and right turn lane southwest bound Minor Minor

Study Area Outputs (Intersection Performance Summary)

The Temple region continues to grow, and that growth will ultimately have an impact on the performance of the roadway system. Scenario 1 identified intersection deficiencies in the 2045 No Build and attempted to present conceptual solutions via signal optimization and standard intersection improvements. Table 3 summarizes the performance of intersections within the Temple study area for the No Build conditions and after signal optimization and intersection improvements. After the signal optimization, the number of deficient intersections reduced by 36% in the AM and 29% in the PM. After including the intersection improvements, the number of deficient intersections reduced by 69% in the AM, and by 49% in the PM. The results demonstrate the benefit of signal optimization and standard intersection improvements to the overall performance of the city’s intersections Further detail regarding the intersections with a deficient LOS in the AM and PM peak hour for Scenario 1 can be found in the Appendix.

Regional Metrics Summary

In addition to the performance at the immediate intersections,

optimization and intersection improvements have a benefit that extends across the entire network and region

and congestion is alleviated. The total regional delay is the cumulative delay experienced by all travelers during the AM and PM peak hours. Table 4 summarizes the improvements seen to the total regional delay (hours) of the Temple study area as reported by the AM and PM peak hour TransModeler analysis of Scenario 1.

City of Temple Mobility Master Plan

Temple Mobility Master Plan Scenario Planning Technical Memo

ID Intersection Recommended Improvement Impact AM Impact PM

Temple Mobility Master Plan Scenario Planning Technical Memo

Table 4: Total Regional Delay and Percent Change in Delay

AM Peak Hour Delay (hours) PM Peak Hour Delay (hours)

AM % Change as Compared to No-Build

PM % Change as Compared to No-Build

5,347 8,029 -Signal Optimization 4,307 6,334 19% 21% Intersection Improvement 3,470 5,499 35% 32%

No-Build

As shown, the No Build total regional delay for the Temple study area reduced 19% in the AM peak hour and 21% in the PM peak hour as a result of the signal optimization. Adding the standard intersection improvements further reduced delay to a total of a 35% reduction in the AM peak hour and 32% in the PM peak hour.

Temple Mobility Master Plan Scenario Planning Technical Memo

Scenario 2: Systemwide Roadway Improvements

Introduction

Scenario 2 builds upon Scenario 1 by including the optimized traffic signals and preliminary improvements as part of the base network. The resulting impacts to the level of service on the transportation network based on these improvements were run again to identify roadway segments with a failing LOS.

Similar to the process between Scenario 1 and Scenario 2, the resulting transportation network will be used to inform Scenario 3.

Methodology/Analysis

Scenario 2 focused on providing additional recommendations to improve the performance of the remaining deficient intersections identified as part of Scenario 1. Improvements of Scenario 2 concentrated on the deficient approaches of these intersections and roadway segments and sought to improve performance by introducing new turn bays, adding new turn lanes, adding capacity, or modifying lane assignments.

DeficientIntersections

Table 5 and Table 6 summarize the intersections with deficient LOS (see Table 1) from Scenario 1 that were further explored as part of Scenario 2 for the AM and PM peaks, respectively. Red shading within the tables indicates deficient LOS (LOS D, E, or F), orange shading indicates a slight improvement, while green shading indicates acceptable LOS (LOS A, B, or C). These tables communicate how the additional Scenario 2 improvements benefitted the LOS of each deficient intersection. Note that intersection improvements may provide great benefit to the immediate intersection, but those benefits may have a consequential effect to other intersections in its proximity.

Table 5: Scenario 2 – Deficient Intersections AM

Intersection

Scenario 1 Improvements Scenario 2 Improvements

Central Ave & IH 35 SB Frontage F F Hilliard Rd, FM 2305 & Old Waco Rd F F Loop 363, Young Ave & FM 438 F E

Midway Dr, Charter Oak Dr & Kegley Rd E D Central Ave & 31st St D D FM 2305 & Kegley Rd D D Old Howard Rd, SH 36 & Hilliard Rd D D Adams Ave & 31st St D D Old Hwy 95 & FM 93 D A 31st St & Loop 363 EB Frontage D D 31st St & Scott Blvd D D 5th St, Canyon Creek Dr & Blackland Rd D D Adams Ave & IH 35 NB Frontage D D

Table 6: Scenario 2 – Deficient Intersections PM

Intersection

Scenario 1 Improvements

Scenario 2 Improvements

Central Ave & 31st St F F

Central Ave & IH 35 Frontage F F

Hilliard Rd, FM 2305 & Old Waco Rd F F Loop 363, Young Ave & FM 438 F E

Midway Dr, Charter Oak Dr & Kegley Rd F E FM 2305 & Kegley Rd E E Loop 363 EB Frontage & Wendland Rd E D 57th St & IH 35 WB Frontage D C

City of Temple Mobility Master Plan

Temple Mobility Master Plan Scenario Planning Technical Memo

Intersection Scenario 1 Improvements Scenario 2 Improvements

Cearley Rd, SH 53 & Twin Oaks Dr D C

31st St & Ave M E E

Loop 363 NB Frontage & SH 36 D C

Old Howard Rd, SH 36 & Hilliard Rd D D

Adams Ave & 31st St F E

FM 2305 & Pea Ridge Rd D D

Adams Ave & 25th St F D

3rd St, Industrial Blvd & Young Ave D C

Adams Ave & IH 35 NB Frontage E E

31st St & Ave H F F

Central Ave & 1st St D D

31st St & Ave R E E

31st St & Azalea Dr E E

31st St & Loop 363 EB Frontage D D

1st St & Ave R D C

Adams Ave & SH 53 D D

3rd St, 1st St & Adams Ave D D

31st St, Marlandwood Rd D D

Adams Ave & IH 35 SB Frontage E D

31st St & Ave D F F

IntersectionImprovements

Table 7 shows the recommended improvements that were implemented as part of Scenario 2 in order to improve the intersection delay and LOS. The impact of the improvements at the intersections are communicated for the AM and PM peak hours separately.

• An impact of “Significant” indicates that the intersection improvements resulted in the intersection improving to an acceptable LOS.

• An impact of “Moderate” indicates that there was a measurable improvement to the intersection, but it was not substantial enough to progress the intersection to an acceptable LOS. While not an acceptable LOS, this does include intersections that went from a LOS F to an improved LOS E or D, which is a meaningful improvement to the intersection.

• An impact of “Minor” indicates that the resulting improvement to the intersection was minor in terms of reducing the overall delay at the intersection that does not result in LOS letter grade change.

Temple Mobility Master Plan Scenario Planning Technical Memo

Intersection Recommended Improvement Impact AM Impact PM

Cearley Rd, SH 53 & Twin Oaks Dr

Northbound lane assignment changed to left turn lane and shared thru/right-turn lane

Minor Significant

3rd St, Industrial Blvd & Young Ave Add left turn lane westbound Minor Significant

Old Howard Rd, SH 36 & Hilliard Rd Add dual left turn southbound Minor Moderate

31st St & Ave H Add right turn lane southbound and extended left turn lane westbound Minor Moderate

FM 2305 & Pea Ridge Rd Add right turn lane eastbound and westbound Minor Minor

FM 2305 & Kegley Rd Add right turn lane northbound and westbound Minor Minor

31st St & Ave M Add right turn lane westbound Minor Minor

31st St & Ave R Add right turn lane eastbound Minor Minor

31st St & Ave M Add right turn lane westbound Minor Minor

Intersection Outputs (Roadway Performance Summary)

Table 8 displays the total delay as it relates to the intersections identified in Table 5 and Table 6. The total regional delay for Scenario 2 decreases by 4% from Scenario 1 and by 48% from the No Build in the AM period, while PM reduces 4% beyond the improvement from Scenario 1 to a 52% decrease It is important to note that as benefits are provided to the immediate analyzed intersections and roadways, it has an impact on other intersections upstream/downstream.

Regional Metrics Summary

In addition to the performance at the immediate intersections in the study area, the intersection improvements of Scenario 2 have a benefit that extends across the entire roadway network and region as delay is reduced and congestion is alleviated. Table 9 summarizes the improvements seen to the total regional delay (hours) as reported by the AM and PM peak hour TransModeler analysis of Scenario 2. The results shown for Scenario 2 include both the improvements included as part of Scenario 1 and the additional improvements analyzed as part of Scenario 2. The total regional delay is the cumulative delay experienced by all travelers during the AM and PM peak hours.

Temple Mobility Master Plan Scenario Planning Technical Memo

As shown, the additional Scenario 2 improvements had a minimal impact on total regional delay from Scenario 1 in the AM peak hour with the total reduction remaining at 35%, though there was a 2% reduction benefit to the PM peak hour as a result of the additional Scenario 2 improvements with the total delay reduction totaling 34% from the No-Build

Temple Mobility Master Plan Scenario Planning Technical Memo

Scenario 3: Regional Connectors

Introduction

Scenario 3 focuses on the regional impacts to the transportation network through the identification of regionally significant corridor connections. It explored the operational performance of the 2045 forecast roadway network of the Temple study area Regional connectors to be used as part of the model were taken from the existing thoroughfare plan and gaps identified through the Comprehensive System Assessment. Scenario 3 was performed using the KTMPO Travel Demand Model so that the impact of the large scale regional arterial connectors could best be captured to understand the benefit at a regionwide level. Scenario 3 also used the proposed improvements included as part of Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 and builds upon those by exploring a series of arterial improvements and new construction of significant regional connectors in the Temple study area region. The results of Scenario 3 were compared to the results of the No Build Scenario to understand how the full set of improvements benefit the Temple region.

Methodology/Analysis

The initial step in this process was to update the KTMPO regional Travel Demand Model to include relevant improvements from Scenario 1 and 2. This included roadway improvements to significant regional arterial connectors to provide additional capacity and increased travel speeds throughout the transportation network. Next, the KTMPO Model network was reviewed to ensure significant improvements on interstates and expressways from the KTMPO’s Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) were included within the Scenario.

Demographics around the Western and Eastern Outer Loop were reviewed to ensure that the modeled scenario had reasonable assumptions in housing and employment data around these two corridors. This process was done with the assumption that the Outer Loops will likely be more attractive for development opportunities and would induce demand. Adjustments were made to include mixed land use of residential and commercial development in the areas around the Eastern Outer Loop, but a stronger presence of residential development and commercial/industrial development were assumed for the northern and southern regions, respectively.

The regional connectors explored as part of Scenario 3 focused on significant roadways where additional capacity or connectivity would be beneficial to the performance of the regional transportation network. The included regional arterial connectors are shown in Table 10.

Table 10:

In addition to the new arterial level regional connectors, interstate and expressway level roadways were reviewed to ensure the improvements planned as part of KTMPO’s MTP were included within the scenario. Table 11 lists the improvements from the MTP that were included.

City of Temple Mobility Master Plan

Temple Mobility Master Plan Scenario Planning Technical Memo

Table 15: Temple Subarea 2045 No-Build Level of Service (LOS)

Measure 2045 No-Build Conditions

Roadway Miles

% Of Total

LOS A C 342 67%

LOS D-F 172 33%

Total 514 100%

Table 16: Temple Subarea 2045 Scenario 3 Level of Service (LOS) Measure 2045 Scenario 3 Roadway Miles

% Of Total

LOS A C 396 74%

LOS D-F 141 26%

Total 536 100%

Table 17 highlights several key impacts to the network. These impacts can be viewed in Figure 2 and Figure 3 by referencing the Map ID.

Table 17: Scenario 3 Key Impacts Map ID Roadway 2045 No Build LOS and 2045 Scenario 3 LOS

1 W Adams Ave (SH 317 to LP 363)

2 LP 363 (I-35 to SH 53)

Despite improvement along SH 317, LP 363 and other regional corridor, W Adams Ave still shows level of service between E & F. same as 2045 no build scenario. This implies that there is potential for additional analysis on how to improve the level of service along W Adams Ave.

With the introduction of the Eastern Outer Loop, the LP363 level of service stayed between E & F when compared to the no build scenario. Although the traffic passes through the city center likely utilizes the Outer Loop but due to proximity to the city center, traffic accessing surrounding areas are still heavily using LP 363.

3 FM 93 (West of S 31st St)

4 SH 36 (County line to Moffat Rd)

SH 317 (County line to W Adams Ave)

5 S 31st St.

6 LP 363 (I 35 to SH 36)

7

Cedar Creek Rd (between SH 317 & Asa Rd)

New parallel roadway to FM 1741 / 31st St from Stratford Dr to FM 93 helped improve the level of service to between C & D from E & F in no build scenario.

Improvements to SH 36 allowed for the improved level of service in scenario 3 along SH 36 between county line and SH 317.

Widening to 4 lanes resulted in improved level of service from W Adams Ave to the county line to the north.

New parallel roadway to FM 1741 / 31st St from Stratford Dr to FM 93 helped improve the level of service of S 31st St to between C & D from E & F in no build scenario.

Introduction of West Outer Loop and improvements along SH 317 and LP 363 resulted in improved level of service along LP 363.

Level of service for this segment of Cedar Creek Rd has degraded from LOS A & B in no build scenario to LOS C & D in scenario 3. With improvements along surrounding roadways and Cedar Creek Rd being an east west connection between those roadways, it is attracting more traffic. Cedar Creek Rd could be considered for roadway improvements to prevent the loss of level of service.

8

Research Pkwy (Moores Mill Rd and SH 36 –Western Outer Loop)

Due to the improvements, level of service improved from Moores Mill Rd to Central Pointe Pkwy. As Research Pkwy approaches SH 36 the level of service degrades. Consideration could be given to the intersection of Western Outer Loop and SH 36 on how to retain or improve the level of service.

City of Temple Mobility Master Plan

Temple Mobility Master Plan Scenario Planning Technical Memo

Figure 2 and Figure 3 provide a high level snapshot of LOS in the study area from the no build to the 2045 Scenario 3 build condition.

Figure 2: Temple Subarea Level-of-Service 2045 No Build Conditions

Figure 3: Temple Subarea Level-of-Service – 2045 Scenario 3

City of Temple Mobility Master Plan

SCENARIO 4: TRANSIT VISION

Introduction

The recommendations and alternatives for the Temple Mobility Plan Transit Vision are comprised of route alignment modifications, reductions, and additions, as well as the introduction of a new service delivery strategy known as microtransit. These recommendations are intended to contribute to creating a complete mobility profile for the Temple community that improves access and mobility at both the local and regional level. The recommended alternatives address the key findings of the transit market analysis as well as the input gathered from stakeholder interviews and the public

Methodology

Guiding Principals

Designing route alignments and service delivery strategies involves the synthesis of multiple data sets and resources. The data and resources listed below informed the customized recommendations and alternatives proposed to achieve the transit vision:

• Public and stakeholder input

• Transit provider input

• Previous transit plan

• Transit market analysis

The following narrative provides an overview of the guiding principles that informed the route alignment, design, and service delivery strategies:

Connectivity

Connectivity is a function of the intersection between various transit routes or between the transit system and other transportation systems. Because fixed route transit does not provide direct transportation between most people’s trip origins and destinations, users often need to use other forms of transportation (also known as first/last mile transportation) to get to and from bus stops. Therefore, it is crucial for fixed route transit systems to achieve efficient and effective connectivity to other transportation systems, to other transit networks or services, and between different routes within the same system. The alignment modifications are designed so that routes intersect with and connect to the Temple transfer station and other networks as directly as possible, particularly pedestrian and bicycle networks.

RouteDeviation

When a route’s alignment is drawn to include minor deviations away from its most direct path to serve a single stop along the deviation, the efficiency and travel time of that particular route are negatively impacted. These deviations reduce route productivity even further when the stops placed there have relatively low boarding activity (boardings + alightings). Where possible, the alternatives eliminate route deviations from fixed route service. Parameters to serve as guidelines for evaluating deviations generally follow a rule of using a percentage of riders that would board along the deviation and the time it takes for the deviation, and the number of passengers the deviation would negatively impact.

RouteDirectness

Like the concept of route deviations, route directness impacts the efficiency and travel time of a particular fixed route. Route directness refers to how immediately a route travels between stops that are adjacent to one another on the service schedule. Parameters to serve as guidelines for evaluating deviations generally follow a rule of using a percentage of riders that would board along the deviation and the time it takes for the deviation, and the number of passengers the deviation would negatively impact.

RouteSpacing

Route spacing is a measure of the distribution of two or more routes that come into proximity with one another. Consideration of fixed route spacing was used to determine whether any service is being duplicated in any given area. In areas with high densities, duplication of service can increase bus

City of Temple Mobility Master Plan

Temple Mobility Master Plan Scenario Planning Technical Memo

Temple Mobility Master Plan Scenario Planning Technical Memo

frequencies and save time for passengers when one or more routes intersect or run along a shared segment. However, in a large service area where densities of population and employment are relatively low compared to other urban areas, the geographical duplication of service markets is more likely to occur when routes run parallel to each other on separate corridors. This results in a lost opportunity to distribute service coverage to a wider area, meaning that certain populations and destinations could go unserved or underserved. The alternatives propose routes spaced in a way that prevents different routes from running parallel and providing similar service to a corridor. More specifically, if two or more fixed routes have segments that run parallel to each other but do not overlap or intersect, these segments should be spaced at least a half mile apart to help increase geographical coverage of service.

Bi directionalservice

One of the most critical concepts of this transit vision is the idea of bi directional service. While a service relying on one circulator route provides good physical coverage and access to opportunities, it can force passengers to deal with significant out of direction travel and increased travel times. Because circulator routes operate on a loop, if the bus travels the loop in only one direction, some passengers will have to first travel away from their desired destination before the route eventually reaches their stop further along in the loop. This has compounding negative effects; not only does it increase travel time, but the perception of the inconvenient travel pattern may discourage some people from using transit. Figure 4 illustrates how a bi directional route network can solve travel time issues that persist with a single direction circulator route thereby making the routes more desirable to use.

Although a circulator service may initially help provide physical coverage and access, the service is limited in its ability to respond to changing demand and other potential context changes. For instance, if a specific section of a circulator route starts to experience higher ridership, the circulator can only increase frequency for the entire route, rather than simply increasing service on the section experiencing higher ridership. By contrast, if the area experiencing higher ridership was serviced by a bi directional route network, the frequency can be increased along the in demand section of the route (also illustrated in Figure 4). The bi directional network allows service to be adaptive to transit demand and better allocate resources.

Figure 4: Circulator vs. Bi-Directional Comparison

Temple Mobility Master Plan Scenario Planning Technical Memo

What is Microtransit?

In addition to the guiding principles described above, it is important to develop a shared understanding about microtransit and the key role it plays in these alternatives as a service delivery tool. Microtransit, or on demand transit, is like a fixed route bus in that passengers are asked to walk to meet a vehicle at a ‘virtual bus stop’ that may be up to ¼ or ½ of a mile from their requested location. However, it is different from a fixed route bus in that there are no schedules or route maps. Instead, trips must start and end within specified zones that fill gaps in the bus network.

Passengers can book a trip using a smartphone application (“app”), a website, or through a call center. Like the more common rideshare options such as Uber and Lyft, to book a ride, a passenger starts by indicating the number of passengers in their party and their desired pick up and drop off locations. When booking a ride using the app, passengers will be able to clearly see a map showing the geographic zone in which service is offered. Requesting a trip beyond this zone is not possible, so passengers always know where the microtransit service is available. Once the passenger submits a trip request, they are given a proposal that tells them when the vehicle will arrive and where to meet it. Typically, passengers must wait between 10 and 30 minutes for a trip, although this may vary depending on the level of demand and the number of vehicles available. Passengers can track the vehicle in real time using the app. The passenger is provided with vehicle information for example: license plate, driver name, driver photo, and vehicle ID number. Passengers can usually cancel a ride at any time before pickup.

Once the vehicle arrives, the driver confirms the passenger’s details using the driver app. Passengers can pay using credit and debit cards, transit passes, cash, vouchers, and more. Most microtransit providers take care to include payment options for people without credit cards or bank accounts to ensure that the service is accessible to all. The passenger is then taken to their destination. Along the way, the vehicle will pick up and drop off other passengers heading in the same direction, but care is taken to avoid lengthy detours for passengers already on board. The passenger can track their progress using the app. After each trip, passengers may be automatically emailed a receipt or view it in the app. Passengers may also be able to provide real time and post trip feedback through the app.

Here are some examples of the parameters of microtransit service that would be set by the transit provider:

• Pickup window - The amount of time a pick-up can occur before or after the scheduled pickup time. (e.g., +/- 15 minutes)

• Negotiated trip window - A dispatcher can schedule a trip before or after the requested pickup time. (e.g., +/- 60 minutes)

• Detour allowance - The time or distance allowed during a trip to pick up additional passengers. This allowance is typically set to achieve an average ride time of approximately 20-30 minutes or better per passenger, which would be comparable to the average ride time of the current fixed route service in Temple.

Alternatives

This section provides an overview of the candidate service alternatives developed by the project team. The benefits and tradeoffs between each alternative are described. Each alternative includes a map and performance metrics. These alternatives are set up in a manner that allows the project team to isolate the strengths and eliminate the weaknesses of each alternative and determine the preferred combination of route and service concepts that will have the support of the community, City leadership, project partners, and City staff. The other powerful feature of this process is that some of these concepts can be implemented in a sustainable and phased process. The performance metrics used for this analysis are based on the Comprehensive System Assessment – Existing Conditions analysis. The percentages are based on the total percentages of the study area. While each of these alternatives adds a new route there are also tradeoffs associated with achieving more intuitive routing, bi directional service, and more frequency. Some coverage service is proposed to be reduced and this impacts the percentage of the population and employment covered under the quarter mile buffer. An example of this can be seen in Alternative A where service was modified around the Baylor Scott and White Hospital. This hospital accounts for 10,189 jobs and is the biggest job center in Temple and under Alternative A, less of the block group is covered under

Temple Mobility Master Plan Scenario Planning Technical Memo

the quarter mile buffer than under the existing service but the proposed service would be enhanced under this plan and the expectation would be that those jobs that fall just outside of the buffer would still be within a reasonable walking distance and would still use the service.

The performance metrics are defined as:

• Targeted Transit Riders (TTR) - The demographic groups for this metric are more likely to create demand for transit service and include:

o Population with disabilities

o Population with limited English proficiency

o Population of minorites

o Population aged 65 and older

o Population aged 17 or younger

o Population in poverty

• Population any population that fall within a quarter mile buffer around the proposed transit line to represent the assumed maximum distance that most people would be willing to travel by foot or assistive mobility device to reach a transit system access point (bus stop or transfer station).

• Employment any employment that falls within a quarter mile buffer around the proposed transit line to represent the assumed maximum distance that most people would be willing to travel by foot or assistive mobility device to reach a transit system access point (bus stop or transfer station).

The alternatives below show the differences between the candidate alternatives and the existing Temple transit service provided by routes 510 and 530. For the purposes of this effort, route 200 is shown as a dashed line so the regional connectivity can be observed, but the route is not included in the metrics analysis because it has regional connections outside of Temple. Microtransit coverage benefits are stated separately from those of the fixed routes because of the different nature of the service and to allow for direct comparison between the alternatives.

Temple Mobility Master Plan Scenario Planning Technical Memo

Temple Mobility Master Plan Scenario Planning Technical Memo

Temple Mobility Master Plan Scenario Planning Technical Memo

Temple Mobility Master Plan Scenario Planning Technical Memo

Planning Level Cost Estimation

For each alternative, capital and operating costs were estimated. Capital costs are onetime upfront costs comprised of the cost of new buses and for this effort a $435,000 per fixed-route vehicle and $91,000 per microtransit vehicle was used as a standard cost per vehicle. Every fixed route requires one vehicle, the North and West Mobility Zones of Alternative B require one vehicle each, and the Citywide Mobility Zone requires three vehicles. Operating costs, which are estimated across one year, involve the number of hours and days of operation and the current cost of operating a vehicle, provided by the HOP as $76.30/hour for a fixed route vehicle and an industry standard of $55.00/hour for a microtransit vehicle. The costs estimates were extracted to be specific to the operations in the City and not directly correlated to the operations of HOP routes in their entirety which include other service areas.

Table 18 shows that upfront capital costs for Alternative A are highest of the three alternatives, since fixed route vehicles are more expensive than microtransit vehicles, and this alternative requires the most fixed route vehicles. However, because Alternative A requires the fewest vehicles overall, its yearly operating costs are lowest of the three alternatives. Conversely, Alternative C requires the most vehicles and operators, which makes it most expensive to operate.

Table

Figure 5: Capital and Operating Cost by Alternative

City of Temple Mobility Master Plan

Temple Mobility Master Plan Scenario Planning Technical Memo

• The Addition of Microtransit Service The addition of microtransit service expands and improves coverage across the entire network, giving riders from areas of the city that don’t currently have service the ability to commute into downtown more easily via the Temple Transfer Station Mobility Island. Thresholds would need to be set by the city as to when a passenger would be connected to fixed route verses completing a trip solely using Microtransit. Generally, if a passenger is within walking distance (i.e., ¼ ½ mile) of a bus stop the service would force a passenger to take fixed route. If the passenger was outside of that threshold, then Microtransit would assign them to a trip.

• Microtransit ‘Mobility Island’ for Fixed Route Network Connectivity A mobility island serves as a way to connect microtransit zones to the fixed route network. The team microtransit alternatives add a Mobility Island at the Temple Transfer Station.

These draft alternatives are a culmination of the project team’s effort to develop a customized vision for transit that reflects the Temple community and is informed by both the technical analysis and the public input process. The alternatives and recommendations represent the mobility needs and wants of residents throughout the study area. The option to take public transit as opposed to driving a personal vehicle, walking, or biking is vital for those who are unable to drive because of their age or a disability. For some, transit provides a cost saving alternative to using a car, or aids in mitigating poor air quality and the further effects of climate change. Expanding the travel options for residents in Temple is an expansion of quality of life, which is imperative to any city that is experiencing growth.

SCENARIO 5: ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION

IMPROVEMENTS

Introduction

This scenario evaluates how the addition of active transportation facilities/infrastructure benefits access, character, quality of place as well as the health and well being of the community. The recommended improvements in the locations of this scenario analysis aim to address the key findings of the active transportation demand, level of stress, as well as the public input gathered from stakeholder interviews and the general public. This will serve as a context level review to provide the city with a reference for future opportunities to use at similar improvements in locations throughout the city

Methodology

Project Review

Results from the comprehensive system assessment and feedback from the public were used to provide a set of preliminary project locations within the study area that can be reviewed for future analysis and potential implementation into the Active Transportation Plan recommendations. Locations were analyzed for high-level recommendations based on national best practices.

Context Review

Two locations were selected to review different types of contexts in the city that can benefit from active transportation improvements. Context 1 prioritizes the connection of neighborhoods to important daily needs such as schools, public amenities, transit stations, parks, and major retail & employment areas. Context 2 focuses on example corridor improvements that will provide connectivity across the City of Temple and will integrate improvements to the On Street system with the use of Off Street trails. This option will also focus on reducing significant barriers to crossing busy and wide streets by improving the design and frequency of crossing locations.

Analysis

Project Review

Projects:ContinuitybetweenParkTrailsandPlannedOn RoadNetwork

The planned trails and on street bicycle facility connections do an excellent job of connecting a network of logical connections turning a set of park trails into part of the active transportation network (where it is feasible). Because these are planning level connections, there is yet to be precise plans for location and intersection crossings. The gaps highlighted in Table 20 are either areas where existing trail crossings could use further engineering and safety analysis, or future crossings should be considered carefully for optimal location and design that balances safety with usability.

Table 19: Trail Crossing Gaps and Potential Connections

Location Notes

Trail crossing across 1st Street at Temple College Signalized, but could benefit from high visibility features, traffic calming or other safety improvements.

Friar’s Creek Trail crossing across Canyon Creek Dr Marked, but could benefit from high visibility features.

Hickory Rd and Midway Dr Signalized, but could benefit from high visibility features.

Projects:CriticalRoadwayNetworkGaps

The AT Demand Analysis highlights an area in Temple where the AT Demand scores high and there are very few continuous North/South and East/West connections across the grid. The railroad is a significant barrier in this area and is likely forcing additional traffic to the few streets that go through. This reinforces

City of Temple Mobility Master Plan

Temple Mobility Master Plan Scenario Planning Technical Memo

Temple Mobility Master Plan Scenario Planning Technical Memo

the need for a balanced roadway approach to make sure active transportation modes are accommodated on the through streets. Table 21 displays planning level review of potential connections to close these gaps.

Table 20: Active Transportation Gaps and Potential Connections Street From To Notes

S 24th St Adams Ave/53 E Avenue N / MLK Railroad overpass to MLK/North 8th St.

S MLK Jr Dr / N. 8th Street E Avenue E

King Circle or Trail Crossing

W Avenue F S MLK Jr Dr S 25th St

S 25th St W H Ave W Avenue E

Includes RR crossing W Avenue E S 25th St S 31 St Tie into trail or sidepath on S 31 St

Stratford Dr Hickory Rd Waterford Park

S 5th St Friars Creek Trail Temple College

Pedestrian bridge over LP 363/US 190 W Adams Ave Hillard Rd N Kegley Rd Safety Improvements to upgrade from sidewalk to trail - with signage and crossings

W Adams Ave Morgan’s Point Rd 317

E. Avenue H MLK Henderson Rd

Context Review

Context1:ConnectingPeopletoPlaces

Safety Improvements to upgrade from sidewalk to trail - with signage and crossings

Expand southwest and add bike lanes at the overpass to HB trail

Context 1 focuses on connecting the community to places they visit most. While many people use vehicles to get themselves or their family to and from their destinations, others may prefer, need, or desire to use other methods to reach their destination. The analysis provides a case study for connecting an activity center to its surrounding area by investing in new infrastructure or improving upon existing facilities near and around the location. To analyze the infrastructure, walk zones were considered as ¼ mile buffer from the activity center, while bike zones were considered as 1 mile buffer from the activity center.

Investment in this type of infrastructure yields many benefits to the community such as:

• Efficient transportation

• Improved air quality

• Improved vibrancy and livability

Context 2: KeyCorridorsandOff StreetConnectivity

Most modes of transportation have a backbone of a specific system that provides quick, efficient, and convenient connections. For example, vehicular traffic in Temple may use Adams St. and 3rd St. as core East to West and North to South connectors, respectively. These streets are wide, have turning lanes in most locations, and prioritize travel along the corridor more than the streets intersecting them. A transit system might also have core routes running more frequently that provide convenient service in the highest demand locations. Similarly, the walking and biking network should contain key routes that provide comfortable, safe, and convenient connections throughout Temple. Similar to Context 1, this option analyzed infrastructure for walk zones at a ¼ mile buffer from the corridor and bike zones at 1 mile buffer from the corridor.

City of Temple Mobility Master Plan

Temple Mobility Master Plan Scenario Planning Technical Memo

KeyCharacteristicsforeachContext:

Sidewalks

A variety of options are available to improve sidewalk connections. A few of the options are presented below in Figure 6 to Figure 8 that reflect the selected locations for the context review.

Temple Mobility Master Plan Scenario Planning Technical Memo

Bike Lanes

Several options for dedicated bike lanes are available for consideration as seen in Figure 9 and Figure 10. Options are presented below based on the selected locations for the context review.

Figure 9: Community Collector Bike Lane Options

Figure 10: Bicycle Boulevard Bike Lane Options

Hike and Bike Trails

Several categories of hike and bike trails are available for consideration as seen in Figure 11 to Figure 13 Options are presented below based on the selected locations for the context review.

City of Temple Mobility Master Plan

Figure 11: Neighborhood Connector Trails Option

Figure 12: Thoroughfare Connector Trails Option

Source: City of Temple Neighborhood Plans

Source: City of Temple Neighborhood Plans

Source: City of Temple Parks and Trails Master Plan

Source: City of Temple Parks and Trails Master Plan

Figure 13: In Park Trails Option

Temple Mobility Master Plan Scenario Planning Technical Memo

Intersection Design Enhancements

Intersection Design Enhancements encourage ADA compliant intersections that allow for safe and seamless pedestrian movements across roadways These improvements can range from striping for crosswalks, adding/improving pedestrian ramps, and adding or improving pedestrian crossing signals. Example of potential enhancements can be viewed in Figure 14

Figure 14: Intersection Design Enhancement Example

Outputs (Context Locations)

An overview of the context location examples developed by the project team are provided in this section. Each alternative includes a map and performance metrics.

ContextA:ConnectingPeopletoPlaces MeredithDunbarEarlyChildhoodSchool

Context A reviews connecting Meredith Dunbar Early Childhood School with the surrounding neighborhood and nearby connection points that will lead to places often visited by the community including employment, services, shopping, and recreational areas. Information gained from the CSA, neighborhood plans, a stakeholder engagement meeting with the principal of the school, and public feedback were all considered when reviewing for potential recommendations. The below map and metrics provide a snapshot of preliminary recommendations and their impact on the system.

City of Temple Mobility Master Plan

Source: City of Temple Parks and Trails Master Plan

Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)

City of Temple Mobility Master Plan

Temple Mobility Master Plan Scenario Planning Technical Memo

Context

Context B reviews connectivity along S. 25 Street in West Temple. The analysis focuses on closing gaps and identifying bicycle and pedestrian improvements that will lead to seamless active travel along the corridor. Similar to context A, information gained from the CSA, neighborhood plans, stakeholder engagement and public feedback were all considered when reviewing for potential recommendations. The map and metrics provide a snapshot of preliminary recommendations and their impact on the system.

Temple Mobility Master Plan Scenario Planning Technical Memo

Context B Corridor Improvements

Temple Mobility Master Plan Scenario Planning Technical Memo

Context B Level of Stress Scores (BEFORE)

Context B Level of Stress Scores (IMPROVED)

Temple Mobility Master Plan Scenario Planning Technical Memo

Key Findings

The project review provided a brief look into potential projects the city can analyze for future improvements and opportunities to close key gaps in the active transportation network. This combined with policy and program improvements can lead to a core network the city can build upon for future growth and to maintain a transportation system with multimodal options. The context review identified deficiencies in the condition of the pedestrian and bicycle network, along with the lack of infrastructure resulting in gaps in the overall ability to connect from one location to another.

The city has a variety of options to improve active transportation movement through several different contexts. Relatively minor improvements such as new sidewalks, striping for crosswalks and bike lanes, and signage can be enhanced with larger improvements such as intersection design enhancements, new hike and bike trails, and protected bike lanes. The analysis completed in this scenario provides valuable information for preparing recommendations for the active transportation plan and ultimately potential projects to construct.

SCENARIO 6: EMERGING TECHNOLOGY & TSMO

Introduction

Emerging Technology & Transportation System Management and Operations (TSMO) differs from the preceding scenarios due to its focus on policy and program impacts. This scenario reviews potential impacts (curbside management, parking restrictions/access, delivery) on the transportation network, the City, and the region based on new policy or program recommendations for car sharing, bike sharing or scooter programs, and emerging technologies.

As Temple and the surrounding area continue to grow, efficiently maintaining safety and mobility will become more complex. With growth comes higher traffic volumes, a more complex mix of modes on the transportation system, more points of conflict, and a need for more sophisticated methods of evaluating and managing transportation needs. Rapid development of a broad range of technologies in vehicle guidance, monitoring systems, automated data collection systems, artificial intelligence, traffic management software, communication systems, micro mobility services (car, bike or scooter sharing programs) and data management tools is creating new and exciting opportunities for how transportation services are provided and managed. By examining the emerging technologies and advanced data collection and management methods that are on the horizon, the city can make decisions now that can help maximize the value of the emerging capabilities as they become available.

TSMO represents a new approach to optimizing mobility through management and operation of the transportation facilities and services in a city or region. It is an approach to improve mobility for all modes of transportation and uses integrated strategies that are designed to optimize the performance of existing infrastructure by preserving capacity and improving the security, safety, and reliability of the transportation system. TSMO often uses emerging technologies, particularly intelligent transportation systems (ITS), to enhance the opportunities for management and operation.

In 2016, TxDOT initiated a statewide program to raise the awareness of TSMO and its benefits throughout the organization. Due to the large size of Texas’ transportation network, TxDOT chose to implement a three pronged approach for the TSMO planning initiative: a statewide strategic plan, district program plans, and district tactical plans (e.g., mobility service layers, projects, programs, etc.)

Since the completion of the Statewide TSMO Strategic Plan, development of TSMO Program plans has begun for the state’s twenty five districts. A TSMO program Plan has been completed for the WACO District, of which Temple is a part. More than 30 action items to advance TSMO were identified for the TxDOT Waco District. Of these action items, there were ten identified as the highest priority that will provide significant return on investment. These action items are related to the following:

• General Traffic Management

• Traffic Incident Management

• Traffic Signal Management

The action items are to serve as starting points for the District’s TSMO activities over the next five years. Longer term actions were also identified for Work Zone Management, Planned Special Event Management, and Road Weather Management. Although the TxDOT TSMO Program Plans are oriented primarily to the TxDOT Districts for the management and operations of the roads in the state system, many of the concepts encompassed in the plans are also applicable to local roads not on the state system and facilities for transit and other modes that can be applied at the city level.

Methodology

The initial step in this scenario was the identification of existing policies and other available data regarding emerging technologies or TSMO strategies in place at the City or MPO level. The team also researched best practices within the industry to identify policies or programs that could be applied in Temple.

Temple Mobility Master Plan Scenario Planning Technical Memo

Temple Mobility Master Plan Scenario Planning Technical Memo

Temple/KTMPO Policies and Programs

CityofTemple

Interest in Emerging Technologies and TSMO was expressed in the City of Temple’s Comprehensive Plan 2020. Two of the stated principles of the plan are as follows:

2.2.7. Evaluate opportunities to invest in transportation demand management and smart city technologies to improve transportation efficiency.

For a growing city the size of Temple, a greater focus may be to establish a proactive set of land use policies that reduce the need for travel through transportation efficient land uses (e.g., neighborhood services near residential areas, higher intensity mixed use activity centers, etc.) and a focus on maximizing the use of smart city technologies to improve transportation efficiency. Some of these smart city technologies may include real time weather monitoring systems to enhance traffic safety, intelligent and adaptive traffic control devices that react to changing traffic patterns and public safety emergency needs, effective parking management, enhanced transit services, etc.

2.2.8. Proactively monitor predicted changes to the transportation system stemming from the onset of autonomous vehicle technologies.

As autonomous vehicle technology slowly begins to improve and become accepted in the public eye, street design and driving habits will need to evolve as well. Whether autonomous vehicles will have the disruptive impact that some predict is unknown, but this technology has the ability to change commuting decisions, peak driving times, intersection design, pedestrian facilities and other key components of the traditional transportation system. Driver-less vehicle technologies is an evolutionary impact like many other tech improvements but has the potential to change mindsets and social decisions based on proximity and timeframes.

Recent initiatives

The city also recently implemented the following initiatives that will help with congestion, mobility and safety strategies:

• New Parking Garage Policy

• Additional Midblock Crossing – the crossings will provide a reduced walking distance for pedestrians when crossing busy roadways improving safety and mobility.

KTMPO

Consideration of Emerging Technologies and TSMO by KTMPO was also evident in their Congestion Management Process (CMP) where there was acknowledgment of the value of improving the safety and mobility through a variety of Emerging Technologies and TSMO strategies. The CMP states -

Technological efficiency improvement strategies utilize modern technology and computing capabilities to improve efficiency and operations in the existing transportation system. These strategies typically involve using sensors to collect and process data about traffic conditions. Information about traffic conditions can be directly presented to commuters in the form of electronic signage so that they can make travel decisions based on current conditions. The information can also be used to manipulate traffic operations based on current demands. Technological efficiency improvement strategies can effectively increase a transportation system’s capacity without requiring costly and time consuming construction.

KTMPO’s CMP identifies a set of strategies that can be part of a toolbox for management of congestion including the following:

• Ramp Metering: Ramp metering maintains incoming and outgoing traffic flows to and from highways and can help manage high traffic areas efficiently.

• Traveler Information and Rerouting Systems: Through a system of communication means, such as electronic signs, traffic can be directed along alternative corridors when other corridors become congested.

City of Temple Mobility Master Plan

Temple Mobility Master Plan Scenario Planning Technical Memo

• Electronic Commercial Vehicle Clearance and Tolls: These tolls regulate the flow of commercial vehicles so as to reduce the freight demand on certain roadways during periods of high demand.

• Automated Travel Time Measurement: Accurate travel time estimates by big data service providers can help motorists make decisions on which routes to take and when to take them.

• Route Information: By informing people about current travel conditions and recommended routes/detours, congestion can be avoided.

• Traffic Signal Optimization: Optimizing timings and sensors for location specific needs can help maintain traffic flows.

• Transit Signal Priority: By giving transit services priority at traffic signals, transit services can be improved and incentivized as a viable mode of transportation.

• Demand-Responsive Signal System: Traffic signals modify timings based on traffic demand and help to maintain traffic flows when the transportation system is under heavy load.

• Transit Vehicle Tracking: Tracking the exact locations and arrival times of transit vehicles can improve the user experience and incentivize transit use

• Motorist Assistance Patrols: Special patrols can access accidents and stranded vehicles more quickly and get traffic moving again. An example of this is the HERO (Highway Emergency Response Operator) program, which operates in the Austin metropolitan area.

• Strategies to Improve Accident Response and Clearance Time: Improved accident response and clearance times mean that accidents can be addressed sooner, and normal traffic conditions can be restored more quickly.

• Parking Management: Preferential parking for vehicles that carry more than a single occupant can encourage ridesharing.

• Pedestrian Signals: Pedestrian signals can help to improve pedestrian safety as well as reduce conflicts at intersections.

• Bike Sharing System: A network of bicycle rental stations allows for people to make short trips by bicycle. Bike sharing systems are good for resolving the “last mile problem,” which refers to either the first or last leg of a transit trip that is often too far to walk. Bike sharing already exists in many cities across Texas and is seen as a good way to replace shorter car trips with bicycle trips.

Industry Best Practices – Policies and Programs

As new technologies emerge, it is impossible for a city or agency to keep apprised of each as they emerge and more so keep track of what is potentially useful for their locale. Frequently these involve a public/private partnership or a P3, that offsets some or all of the project costs through private investment. Table 21 is list of emerging technologies, mobility solutions and advanced data management methods that the City of Temple and the other transportation agencies in the region should monitor and consider for future application.

Table 21: Best Practices for Emerging Technologies, Mobility Solutions, and Data Management Tool Description

Sensors, Communications and Warnings

Weather and Flood Warning Systems

A multi agency weather and flood warning system could assemble the best available information on severe weather events (rain, sleet, snow, tornados, or high winds) and provides warning to drivers and other travelers. The system could include a coordinated system for determining road closures due to weather or flooding and suggested alternative routes.

End

of Queue Warning System

Speed Warning System

As traffic volumes increase in the Temple area and congestion becomes more common, the City of Temple and the other transportation agencies in the area could consider future use of queue warnings to inform drivers about stopped or slow traffic ahead to provide vehicles more time to slow down safely. Queue warning systems use real time traffic detection to identify queues and roadside dynamic message signs (DMS) to display the warnings.

As part of the statewide effort to reduce traffic fatalities in Texas, the Temple area transportation agencies could consider future use of radar to detect vehicle

Tool Description

Pedestrian and Bicyclist Detection, Notification, and Warnings

Temple Mobility Master Plan Scenario Planning Technical Memo

speeds and LED displays to indicate speeds in excess of the speed limit to oncoming drivers.

This includes technology to promote a safer travel environment for pedestrians and bicyclists such as video- or radar based bicycle and pedestrian detection systems at high conflict intersections to notify drivers, activate warning signs, or adjust crossing time if pedestrians or cyclists are present.

Coordinated Traffic Management and Adaptive Signal Control

To promote a more efficient and collaborative approach to traffic management in the Temple area, the cities and TxDOT could explore opportunities to develop a regional, multi agency TMC and expand the functionality for more system monitoring, remote control of traffic signals, and emergency response.

As the Temple area transportation agencies acquire real time data on traffic patterns and turning movement volumes at intersections, the cities and TxDOT could explore the potential benefits and costs of adaptive signal timing, which automatically adjusts signal timing in response to the traffic patterns and volumes being detected.

Vehicle Technologies Signal

As the capability for communicating with connected vehicles improves over time and the number of connected vehicles increases, the City of Temple, the KTMPO and TxDOT could consider technology for warning of red lights or queues at intersections or other safety functions to support connected vehicle technology.

As the capability for automated and autonomous vehicle operation improves over time, the agencies responsible for designing, constructing, and maintaining the Temple area’s roads could consider modifying their practices to support the safe operation of automated and autonomous vehicles.

As the capability for autonomous vehicle operation improves over time, the Temple area agencies could consider a pilot test of an autonomous shuttle. This could occur in a relatively controlled environment like a Temple area college campuses, a downtown Temple shuttle or as a new service in the regional transit network. Similar pilot tests have been conducted in Texas in the cities of Arlington and Frisco and on the campuses of Texas A&M (College Station) and Texas Southern University (Houston).

Mobility Innovations

Ridesharing and Carpooling

Shared Micromobility

Curbside Management and ADA Accessibility

The City of Temple or the transit authority could contract with private ridesharing and carpooling companies to provide rides in particular service areas or to target segments of the population needing additional ride assistance. This method can be more efficient and affordable than providing a fixed route or on demand service.

This encompasses bike and scooter share and is also meant to include future modalities that are emerging and have yet to emerge. Generally, these modalities operate at a slower speed than vehicles, but are more time and energy efficient than walking. They generally serve the purpose of providing mobility for a trip of a couple of miles or less.

With the introduction of micromobilty along with private ride sharing services, suddenly the curbside has become a critically important interface for arrivals, departures, and parking of many different modes all while maintaining ADA accessibility. Identifying parking locations such as parking boxes and micromobility corrals for e scooter or dockless bicycle becomes increasingly important. With this potentially conflict riddled space, careful planning and delineation can go a long way. Many cities are moving towards keeping this space as flexible as possible, changing rules and uses over the course of a day and the week. This is possible through new technology and digital signage.

City of Temple Mobility Master Plan

Expanded Regional Traffic Management Center (TMC)

Autonomous Shuttles

Temple Mobility Master Plan Scenario Planning Technical Memo

Tool Description

Advanced Data Collection and Data Management Methods

Use of “Big Data”

The KTMPO could work with its member agencies to take full advantage of available low cost and free sources of data derived from cell phones, navigation systems, and other devices with location based applications. In addition to the NPMRDS already in use, the KTMPO should collaborate with TxDOT to acquire data from INRIX, StreetLight, and Waze available through statewide contracts negotiated with these providers. These sources will provide valuable historical data on traffic volumes, speed, travel time, and origin destination patterns. The KTMPO and its partners should continue to monitor the availability of transportation data from big data sources and consider how it might be used to improve transportation planning and system management.

Real time Traffic Data Capture by Signal System Equipment

Advanced Videobased Data Collection

The City of Temple and TxDOT should continue to research, procure, install, and use signal system equipment that will provide real-time traffic data. This type of data will support the evaluation of the performance of the signal system and eventually support adaptive signal timing. Archived data will also be useful in planning and support the MPO’s Congestion Management Process.

The City of Temple and TxDOT should continue to research, procure, install, and use advanced video based data collection to provide data on the movement of vehicles/people by all modes including cars, trucks, motorcyclists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. This type of data will be useful for signal timing, signal priority, warning systems, and long range planning for special facilities for specific modes.

Automated Traffic Signal Performance Monitoring (ATSPM)

Asset Management and ITS Performance Monitoring Systems

As adequate data collection systems are implemented to support it, the City of Temple and TxDOT could develop or install an ATSPM system to provide the capability to evaluate signal timing and make improvements where appropriate.

TxDOT has recently launched a statewide effort to assist its districts in asset management. Tools are being provided to help the districts maintain an inventory of their transportation assets and to store information about the specifications, age, and condition of those assets. The management systems can also be used to predict the need for cost effective maintenance that can prolong the useful life of the asset or identify when a replacement may be needed to avoid a breakdown in the transportation system operations. Specialized asset management software has recently been developed for ITS assets.

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (Drones) for Data Collection

Analysis

The City of Temple, TxDOT and the other transportation agencies in the area could monitor the development of and regulations regarding use of drone technology and explore the opportunities to use the technology to collect information more safely and cost-effectively. Drones have been used by transportation agencies throughout the US for bridge inspections, crash scene investigations, and data collection at locations that are difficult to reach in person.

The analysis of the emerging technologies and TSMO strategies for Temple and the surrounding area consisted of a review of current applications of the options suggested in the best practices section. The analysis also included an assessment of interest in these strategies among key stakeholders and their potential willingness to consider innovative emerging technologies and strategies. The review of applications of the candidate strategies and the discussions with key stakeholders were used to assess the applicability of the option for Temple and the surrounding area.

Outputs

The output from the analysis of emerging technologies and TSMO was a comprehensive catalog of potential strategies that could be applied within Temple and the surrounding area. This catalog represents a toolbox of strategies that can be used to address mobility and safety challenges in the area as growth continues and the need for innovative solutions increases.

City of Temple Mobility Master Plan

Temple Mobility Master Plan Scenario Planning Technical Memo

Key Findings

The analysis of emerging technologies and TSMO strategies in Temple and the surrounding area demonstrated that there is significant potential for these options. A comprehensive review of options identified numerous examples of successful applications. Discussion of the regional safety and mobility needs with key stakeholders from Temple and the surrounding area revealed that there is strong support for cost-effective strategies that can help to optimize system performance through increased system management and operations. The discussion with key stakeholders also revealed an openness to consideration of innovative emerging technologies and methods as well as to greater collaboration among area agencies in the management and operations of the area’s transportation system.

Temple Mobility Master Plan Scenario Planning Technical Memo

APPENDIX A: SCENARIO 1

The following summarizes the intersections with deficient LOS in the AM peak hour in one of the analysis steps of Scenario 1. Location of these intersections are displayed in Figure 15. Table 22 communicates how both signal optimization and intersection improvements benefitted the LOS of each deficient intersection location. Red shading within the table indicates deficient LOS (LOS D, E, or F), orange shading indicates a slight improvement, while green shading indicates acceptable LOS (LOS A, B, or C). Note that signal optimization or intersection improvements may provide great benefit to the immediate intersection, but those benefits may have a consequential effect to other intersections in its proximity.

Figure 15: Scenario 1 Deficient Intersections. Table 22: Scenario 1 - Deficient

Temple Mobility Master Plan Scenario Planning Technical Memo

Map ID Intersection No Build Signal Optimization Intersection Improvement

11 FM 2305 & Kegley Rd F F D

12 57th St & IH 35 WB Frontage F F C

13 31st St & IH 35 NB Frontage F F B

14 Cearley Rd, SH 53 & Twin Oaks Dr F F B

15 Industrial Blvd & Loop 363 SB F F B

16 IH 35 SB Frontage & Nugent Ave F F A

17 Young Ave & Shell Ave F F A

18 Old Howard Rd, SH 36 & Hilliard Rd F E D

19 Loop 363 EB Frontage & Wendland Rd F D C

20 Loop 363 NB & Industrial Blvd F D C

21 Loop 363 NB Frontage & SH 36 F D C

22 31st St & Ave M F C C

23 FM 2305 & Pea Ridge Rd F C C

24 Loop 363 SB Frontage & SH 36 F C A

25 Industrial Blvd & Cearley Rd F A A

26 Old Hwy 95 & FM 93 E F D

27 31st St & Ave D E F B

28 31st St & Ave H E E C

29 Central Ave & Main St E E C

30 3rd St, Industrial Blvd & Young Ave E C D

31 31st St & Ave R E C C

32 Adams Ave & 25th St E C C

33 Central Ave & 25th St E C C

34 31st St & Loop 363 EB Frontage D D D

35 31st St & Scott Blvd D D D

36 5th St, Canyon Creek Dr & Blackland Rd D D D

37 Adams Ave & Apache Dr D D B

38 1st St & Ave R D C C

39 31st St & Marlandwood Rd D C C

40 57th St & Loop 363 EB Frontage D C C

41 US 190 / Loop 363 WB & 1st St Connector D C C

42 31st St & Azalea Dr D B C

43 US 190 / Loop 363 EB & 1st St Connector D B B

44 Loop 363 WB Frontage & Wendland Rd D B A

45 IH 35 NB Frontage & Ave D D A A

The following summarizes the intersections with deficient LOS in the PM peak hour in one of the analysis steps of Scenario 1. Table 23 communicates how both signal optimization and intersection improvements benefitted the LOS of each deficient intersection location. Red shading within the table indicates deficient LOS (LOS D, E, or F), orange shading indicates a slight improvement, while green shading indicates acceptable LOS (LOS A, B, or C). Note that signal optimization or intersection improvements may provide great benefit to the immediate intersection, but those benefits may have a consequential effect to other intersections in its proximity.

Temple Mobility Master Plan Scenario Planning Technical Memo

Table 23: Scenario 1 – Deficient Intersections - PM

Map

ID Intersection

No Build Signal Optimization Intersection Improvement

1 Central Ave & 31st St F F F

2 Adams Ave & 31st St F D F

4 Central Ave & IH 35 SB Frontage F F F

3 Central Ave & IH 35 NB Frontage D B C

6 Adams Ave & IH 35 NB Frontage F B E

5 Adams Ave & IH 35 SB Frontage D B E

7 Adams Ave & SH 53 E B D

8 Hilliard Rd, FM 2305 & Old Waco Rd F F F

9 Loop 363, Young Ave & FM 438 F F F

10 Midway Dr, Charter Oak Dr & Kegley Rd F F F

11 FM 2305 & Kegley Rd F F E

19 Loop 363 EB Frontage & Wendland Rd F F E

12 57th St & IH 35 WB Frontage F F D

14 Cearley Rd, SH 53 & Twin Oaks Dr F F D

15 Industrial Blvd & Loop 363 SB F F C

20 Loop 363 NB & Industrial Blvd F F C

46 Nugent Ave & Cearley Rd F F C

26 Old Hwy 95 & FM 93 F F C

13 31st St & IH 35 NB Frontage F F B

16 IH 35 SB Frontage & Nugent Ave F F B

17 Young Ave & Shell Ave F F B

25 Industrial Blvd & Cearley Rd F F A

22 31st St & Ave M F E E

21 Loop 363 NB Frontage & SH 36 F E D

18 Old Howard Rd, SH 36 & Hilliard Rd F E D

24 Loop 363 SB Frontage & SH 36 F E B

23 FM 2305 & Pea Ridge Rd F D D

32 Adams Ave & 25th St F C F

30 3rd St, Industrial Blvd & Young Ave F C D

47 57th St & Loop 363 NB Frontage F C C

40 57th St & Loop 363 SB Frontage F C C

43 US 190 / Loop 363 EB & 1st St Connector F C C

49 US 190 / Loop 363, Martin Luther King Jr Dr & Kings Trail F C C

50 57th St & Scott Blvd F B B

51 57th St & Ave T F A A

28 31st St & Ave H E F F

29 Central Ave & Main St E E D

52 27453, FM 93 & Hatrick Bluff Rd E E B

31 31st St & Ave R E D E

42 31st St & Azalea Dr E D E

34 31st St & Loop 363 EB Frontage E D D

38 1st St & Ave R E C D

33 Central Ave & 25th St E C C

Temple Mobility Master Plan Scenario Planning Technical Memo

Map ID Intersection No Build Signal Optimization Intersection Improvement

41 US 190 / Loop 363 WB & 1st St Connector E C C

53 3rd St, 1st St & Adams Ave D F D

43 SH 95 & US 190 / SH 36 SB Ramp D E B

13 31st St & Loop 363 WB Frontage D D C

36 5th St, Canyon Creek Dr & Blackland Rd D D C

37 Adams Ave & Apache Dr D D C

39 31st St, Marlandwood Rd & Magnolia Blvd D C D

54 1st St & Ave H D C C

55 31st St & Canyon Creek Dr D C C

35 31st St & Scott Blvd D C C

56 SH 317 & FM 2305 RAMP D C C

57 31st St & Ave T D B A

58 IH 35 Frontage & Midway Dr C D C

27 31st St & Ave D B F F

Aerial Snapshots of key intersection locations are displayed in Figure 16 to Figure 27 on the following pages.

City of Temple Mobility Master Plan

Temple Mobility Master Plan Scenario Planning Technical Memo

Figure 16: Before AM - I-35 - Adams/Central/Airport

Figure 17: After AM - I-35 - Adams/Central/Airport

City of Temple Mobility Master Plan

Temple Mobility Master Plan Scenario Planning Technical Memo

Figure 18: Before PM I-35 - Adams/Central/Airport

Figure 19: After PM - I-35 - Adams/Central/Airport

City of Temple Mobility Master Plan

Temple Mobility Master Plan Scenario Planning Technical Memo

Figure 20: Before AM 31st - at 363/190/Dodgen Loop

Figure 21: After AM 31st - at 363/190/Dodgen Loop

City of Temple Mobility Master Plan

Temple Mobility Master Plan Scenario Planning Technical Memo

Figure 22: Before PM 31st - at 363/190/Dodgen Loop

Figure 23: After PM –31st - at 363/190/Dodgen Loop

City of Temple Mobility Master Plan

Temple Mobility Master Plan Scenario Planning Technical Memo

Figure 24: Before AM Adams Ave - and Hilliard/Old Waco

Figure 25: After AM Adams Ave - and Hilliard/Old Waco

Temple Mobility Master Plan Scenario Planning Technical Memo

Figure 26: Before PM Adams Ave - and Hilliard/Old Waco

Figure 27: After PM Adams Ave and Hilliard/Old Waco