Transit Oriented Development at Lexington · Report Conclusion ... Typical Clearances for Flashing...
Transcript of Transit Oriented Development at Lexington · Report Conclusion ... Typical Clearances for Flashing...
Transit Oriented Development at Lexington Design of Proposed Area along with Design Regulations
Presented by:
Austin Becker Tyler Book
Alexander Jung Graham Russell
Kyle Yu
Date: 4/21/14
Transit Oriented Development at Lexington Page 2
CVE 5002 Integrated Design II – Spring 2014
Abstract
The design proposal at Lexington Avenue of the Wasson Way project is located at the
corner of Montgomery Rd. and Dana Ave. The objective was to create a transit-oriented design
for development at Lexington which includes retail parking, pedestrian and light rail crossing at
the intersection of Montgomery Rd. and the safety of pedestrian crossing over the light rail track
to provide access points along Wasson Way. Thus, a reconnaissance of the area was conducted
to see the potential impact on the design of Wasson Way and to find a solution around these
problems. During this analysis, surrounding potential problematic areas are addressed along with
a provided solution. Therefore, it was concluded that the proposed design, approximately $2.24
million which does not include construction cost, provided the solution to the problems through
series of engineering design steps.
Transit Oriented Development at Lexington Page 3
CVE 5002 Integrated Design II – Spring 2014
Table of Contents Cover Page………...…………………………………………………………………………… 1 Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………........ 2 Table of Contents………………………………………………………………………………. 3 List of Figures………………………………………………………………………………….. 3 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………….. 4 Retail Parking…………....…………………………………………………………………….. 6 Crossing at Montgomery Rd ………..…..………………………………………………….….. 15 Pedestrian Railroad Light Rail Crossing and Access Points…...………………………….…... 27 Project Benefits and Barriers………………………………………………………………….. 35 Report Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………….…. 36 Appendix A: Responsibilities…………………………………………………………………. 37 Appendix B: Parking Garage Cost Analysis Calculations…………………………………….. 38 Appendix C: Typical Clearances for Flashing Light Signals with Automatic Gates …………. 39 Appendix D: Bike/Peds. Bridge Crossing Hwy 29 in Weston, Wisconsin……………………. 40 Appendix E: CASCADE Pedestrian Bridge…………………………………………………… 41 References……………………………………………………………………………………… 42
List of Figures Figure 1: Existing Overview of Lexington Area …………………………..…………………… 4 Figure 2: Proposed Retail Parking …………….………………………………………………... 7 Figure 3: Surface Parking Diagram ……………...…………………………………………...… 8 Figure 4: Pavement Thickness Schematic …..………………………………………………….. 11 Figure 5: Overview of Campus Green Garage………………………………………………….. 12 Figure 6: Surface Parking Cost Estimate ………………………………………………………. 13 Figure 7: Crossing at Montgomery Road ………………………………………………………. 15 Figure 8: Montgomery Road Intersection ………………………………………………………. 16 Figure 9: Typical Gate with Flashers and Crossing sign………………………………………... 17 Figure 10: Example of Pavement Markings at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings ……………….. 18 Figure 11: Typical Railroad Pavement Markings……………………………………………….. 18 Figure 12: Example of Pedestrian Crossing…………………………………………………….. 19 Figure 13: Example of Gate with Fencing……………………………………………………… 20 Figure 14: ADA Slope and Rise of Ramp……………………………………………………… 21 Figure 15: Hwy 29 Bridge Cost Breakdown…………………………………………………… 23 Figure 16 – Final Design Drawing for Pedestrian Crossing……………………………………. 26 Figure 17: Standard Detail of Crossing at Track……………………………………………….. 29 Figure: 18: Section View of Subgrades…………………………………………………………. 30 Figure 19 - 22: Passive Treatments………………………………………………………..…….. 32 Figure 23 - 24: Active Treatments………………………………………………………………. 33 Figure 25: Final Design of Pedestrian Crossing over Track ……………………………………. 34
Transit Oriented Development at Lexington Page 4
CVE 5002 Integrated Design II – Spring 2014
Introduction
One of the most crucial area for the Wasson Way project is the Transit Oriented
Development at Lexington Avenue. The proposed Wasson Way trail runs east to west across
Montgomery Road. The existing railroad line also passes many old buildings in the area which
includes open space that has the potential to be developed. Below is overview of the Lexington
Avenue area that shows the group’s proposals for the area.
Figure 1: Existing Overview of Lexington Area (Source: Google Map)
With a new light rail and bike path implemented throughout this area, more people will
be attracted towards Lexington and Dana Avenue; thus new expansion and growth is required.
The group proposes constructing new retail stores and residential housing all along Dana and
Lexington Avenue, as well as plenty of sustainable green space throughout the area. To
implement this development efficiently and effectively, there are a few required objectives that
need to be met. These objectives include the amount parking spaces needed for the total amount
of retail stores/housing, multiple safe access points that connect the public bike trail to the retail
stores/housing, and a safe crossing for pedestrians at Montgomery Avenue.
Overall, the group has proposed that that the TOD Lexington deliverables includes
implementing retail parking lots and structures to meet the parking needs of the public, creating a
safe crossing over Montgomery Road to provide safe/efficient access for public bikers on the
Transit Oriented Development at Lexington Page 5
CVE 5002 Integrated Design II – Spring 2014
Wasson Way trail, and providing convenient access points to the Wasson Way trail from
housing/retail development. The group proposed to provide a sufficient design and cost estimate
for each deliverable. The group believes that these deliverables will insure a safe, successful,
and efficient transit oriented development for the Wasson Way trail.
Transit Oriented Development at Lexington Page 6
CVE 5002 Integrated Design II – Spring 2014
Retail Parking
Background
Due to a new light rail and bike path near Lexington Avenue, along with new retail stores
and residential houses, the area will be more enticing to people, thus making them want to come.
With all of this new development there also needs to be places to park, thus the need for a
surface parking lot and/or parking garage. According to the Cincinnati Zoning Code 1425-19
Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements, there needs to be at least 1 parking spot per 200
square feet of retail stores, 1 parking spot per 150 square feet of restaurants, and 1 parking spot
per housing unit (17).
In this transit oriented development, there is a combined 111,000 square feet of retail
stores and restaurants. It is still to be determined the exact amount of restaurants and retail stores
so we averaged out the amount of spaces needed per square feet to 200. From this the amount of
parking spots needed for retail and restaurants is approximately 555. There also needs to be a
certain amount of parking for residential housing units. With the average apartment being around
950 square feet, we calculated there could be 139 residential units in the area, therefore 139
parking spots need. By adding the retail/restaurants and the residential spots the total comes out
to be 694. Cincinnati Zoning Codes also states that this number is allowed to be cut in half for
transit oriented development so the minimum amount of parking spots needed is 347.
Not all of these spots could fit into one surface lot or parking garage, so a combination of
the two had to be developed. After discussing viable options with our planner, he decided it
would be best to have on surface lot in the middle of all the retail stores, as well as two parking
garages. These will be discussed in the next section of this report.
Transit Oriented Development at Lexington Page 7
CVE 5002 Integrated Design II – Spring 2014
Design – Surface Parking
Overall, there is a total of 111,350 ft2 of retail and housing space that includes 140
residential units. Based on retail parking standards approximately 700 parking spots are
required. However, because of Cincinnati zoning codes for Transit Oriented Development, the
700 required spots can be reduced in half to approximately 350 total required parking spots.
After analyzing the current problem and situation, we have proposed one surface parking lot and
two structure parking garages as the final design to meet our five retail parking deliverables.
Figure 2 is a diagram of what our proposed section would look like.
Figure 2: Proposed Retail Parking (Provided by Graham Gilmer)
In terms of the proposed surface parking lot, there is 47,200 ft2 of pavement available for
the proposed surface asphalt parking lot. The asphalt surface parking lot will be poured in 3
layers to create a sustainable and efficient parking surface. This will consist of an aggregate base
layer, asphalt base layer, and an asphalt surface layer. Using the parking lot standard listed in the
previous section and basing our lot on 16 ft. by 9 ft. parked stalls angled at 45 degrees, our
Transit Oriented Development at Lexington Page 8
CVE 5002 Integrated Design II – Spring 2014
parking lot will hold approximately 140 parking spots. This 140 total surface parking stalls
number was confirmed by the planner of a group by a drawn to scale surface parking lot on the
site plan drawing. Based on security standards for surface parking, there will be efficient
lighting and an “open” parking lot. Based on the security standard, the parking lot will have
light posts around the lot that are strategically placed to illuminate 2 foot candles from post to
post. The “open” designed parking lot will not have any trees, large obstructions, or large statues
to keep the lot’s “natural surveillance” and safe security. However, to incorporate sustainability
in the area, there will be green spaces in the middle and around the parking lot. The total cost for
this lot is $233,523 which includes the 3 layers, as well as hauling and grading costs. Figure 3 is
a diagram of how the surface parking would look. As you can see, there is 16 feet of green space
in the middle, then a 12 foot driving lane, followed by 16 foot parking spots.
Figure 3: Surface Parking Diagram (Provided by Graham Gilmer)
Transit Oriented Development at Lexington Page 9
CVE 5002 Integrated Design II – Spring 2014
Sustainability
The main reason asphalt was used in the surface parking lot compared to concrete was
because it’s very sustainable (6). According to the National Asphalt Pavement Association,
asphalt is the most recycled product in America. This makes asphalt very environmentally
friendly. The use of warm-mix asphalt reduces emissions, and reduces fossil fuel consumption
(6). Using recycled asphalt is very economical as well and can save companies lots of money
too.
Design – Parking Structure
There will be two structure parking garages consisting of one four story 105 ft. by 105 ft.
parking garage and one four story 55 ft. by 55 ft. parking garage. Per Dr. Miller, the design of
these two parking garages are ball park estimates. These dimensions for the parking garages
were used because they are two common standard size garages that meet the planning/retail of
the project. The two garages will be pre-cast concrete garages because they have more benefits
than costs associated with concrete type garages than other types of garages. The benefits of pre-
cast concrete garage compared to other types of garages include there being good quality control
in concrete members fabricated at a single point, there being potentially lower cost associated
with concrete garages than other types of garages, there being a shorter on-site construction
schedule, there being a greater expansion joint spacing, and there being an efficient and
sustainable construction during the winter season (29). Based on the references and case studies
listed in the next section, the number of parking spots per square foot is approximately 250 ft2 /
parking spot and thus there will be approximately 177 parking spots in the large garage and 49
parking spots in the smaller garage. For security and safety measures, there will need to be
security fencing around each parking garage’s ground level that will prohibit any climbing into
the garage. The lighting used in the garage, per standard, will used induction lighting to
illuminate 2 foot candles per horizontal illuminance and illuminate 1 foot candle at 5 ft. candle
sections for vertical illuminance. Induction lighting is sustainable and efficient lighting since it
has an average 100 year lifespan (29). For the safety of drivers, vehicular directional signs, such
as Park and EXIT signs, will be place strategically in each garage. After comparing and
analyzing out parking garage costs from different sources, the cost to create a parking garage was
Transit Oriented Development at Lexington Page 10
CVE 5002 Integrated Design II – Spring 2014
averaged out to be $32.50 / ft2. The total cost for the small garage (12,100 ft2) is $393,250 and
the total cost for the large garage (44,100 ft2) is $1,433,250. These costs include substructure,
shell (roofing, superstructure, etc.), interior, service (plumbing, HVAC, electrical, etc.),
equipment, site work, and architect fees.
In order to have some immediate return on the project, each parking garage will charge
$2.00 per hour parking fee. Retail store employees will be allowed a parking pass free of charge
to accommodate their daily parking needs. The group’s planner estimates that each garage will
always be half full (75% customers), have a paying customer (excluding employees of the retail
stores) parking in the garage for on average 2 hours, and have the number of paying customers
per day to be approximately 250 people. With these estimates, the daily return with 255 people
per day at an average time of 2 hours per day will bring in $1020 daily. Thus, the yearly return
on these two garages will equal $372,300 and take an average of 5 years to pay off the two
parking structures.
Case Studies
In the surface parking lot pavement design, three layers of asphalt were used to construct
the lot. The first layer was the base layer just made up of 6 inch aggregate. The second layer was
a base/binder layer made up of 4 inches of asphalt. Then the final layer was the surface layer of
asphalt which was only 2 inches deep. All of these were above than the minimum standard from
the parking lots in Kentucky just to ensure that the lot will be structurally sound. These all came
from the standards in the “Asphalt Parking Lot Guide” case study on PAIKY.org and are seen in
Figure 4.
Transit Oriented Development at Lexington Page 11
CVE 5002 Integrated Design II – Spring 2014
Figure 4: Pavement Thickness Schematic
Source: http://paiky.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Parking_Lot_Guide.pdf
Now all of these depend on the California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of the soil. The higher
the CBR, the less thick the layers that have to be (11). The only layer that really changes is the
asphalt base layer, which may go up an inch or two depending on the CBR. This is all based on
light duty traffic applications (less than 120,000 ESALs), such as parking lots where there is not
a lot of high volume traffic (11).
For our parking structure design, the group looked at the University of Cincinnati’s
Campus Green Parking Garage. By conducting scaled measurements off Google Maps, site
visits to the existing garage, and talking to employees at UC Parking Services the group was able
to get a good grasp for the parking structure. An overview of Campus Green Garage can be seen
in Figure 5. By taking scaled measurements of the garage online and visiting the physical site,
the group was able to figure out the total square footage of the garage to be 390,600 square feet
total (6 stories at 65,100 square feet per floor). By talking to UC Parking services ,the group
figured out the price for parking in the garage ($10 per day), the make of the garage (precast
concrete), the approximate worth of the garage based on an expecting future sale of the existing
Transit Oriented Development at Lexington Page 12
CVE 5002 Integrated Design II – Spring 2014
garage (approximately $15 million), and the total number of parking spaces (1600 parking stalls)
(14). After taking all of this information into account, the group was able to come up with an
approximate cost per square foot ($38.40 / sq. ft) and approximate parking per square foot (250
sq. ft / parking stall). This information would be later analyzed with other sources/information to
predict the final average price per square foot and provide a solution for the two proposed
parking garages.
Figure 5: Overview of Campus Green Garage
Source: Google Maps
Transit Oriented Development at Lexington Page 13
CVE 5002 Integrated Design II – Spring 2014
Another case study we looked at was from two RS Means sources. The first study/source
was looking at national average cost per square foot for building a parking garage in Cincinnati.
This information came from online RS Means data and Reed Construction Data website. After
going through the online source, the group figured out that the national average price per square
foot cost was $45/ sq. ft (7). The second RS Means source was a printed RS Means book where
the group analyzed different parking size parking garages and the different costs associated with
them based on square footage (10). The group focused its efforts on the pricing for a four story
pre-cast concrete parking garage, specifically an 85,000 total square foot garage. After close
inspection and performing some ratio calculations, the two parking garage pricing came out to be
approximately $8.60/sq. ft for the smaller proposed garage and $31.31 for the larger garage.
These pricing costs were later combined with the other RS Means case study and the Campus
Green case study to find the final average total cost/sq. ft value to be used for both garages. The
final average cost value came out to be approximately $32.50/ sq. ft. The detailed cost analysis
chart can be found in the appendix section of this report.
Supporting Calculations and Information
Below is a chart showing how the group obtained the cost estimates for the surface
parking. As stated in the previous section, the parking structure cost analysis can be found in the
Appendix B section for this report. This surface parking cost estimate was based off RS
MEANS.
Line Number Description Unit Crew Daily Output Labor Hours Bare Material Bare Labor Bare Eq. Bare Total Total O&P Truck Loads Total Sy Total CostGrading 312213200260 50,000 SY Ea. B11L 0.72 22.222 - 950 980 1930 2525 - 47,200 2525Hauling 312323200054 8 CY Truck LCY B34A 144 0.056 - 2.09 2.9 4.99 6.37 5,900 - 37583
Agg. Base 321123230100 6" Deep SY B36C 500 0.008 5.54 0.4 0.82 6.76 7.59 - 5244.4444 39805.3333Base Layer 321216130200 4" Deep SY B25 4140 0.021 14.9 0.95 0.67 16.52 18.55 - 5244.4444 97284.4444
Surface Layer 321216130380 2" Deep SY B25B 6345 0.015 8.36 0.69 0.47 9.52 10.74 - 5244.4444 56325.3333
$ 233523
Surface Parking Lot - 47,200 ft2
Figure 6: Surface Parking Cost Estimate (Source: RS MEANS)
Transit Oriented Development at Lexington Page 14
CVE 5002 Integrated Design II – Spring 2014
Conclusion
After working with the planner and real estate group, we believe our design is adequate
except for the smaller 55 ft. by 55 ft. garage. This garage is one too small for sufficient use and
isn’t a practical size garage that is used in the modern world. First, the garage parking ramps
from floor to floor will be extremely high and dangerous. Second, the garage’s number of
parking spaces will be minor and not worth the trouble of spending approximately half a million
dollars for an extra 50 spaces (~$10,000 / parking space). We believe this small garage should
be not be implemented, that the garage itself is infeasible, and that this “garage” area should be
used for green space. This 50 parking space requirement can easily be fulfilled by adding an
extra story on top of the larger proposed 105 ft. by 105 ft. garage. This would change the cost to
$1.79 million for the now one 5-story parking garage which is cheaper than the $1.82 million for
the two proposed parking garage. With the new 5-story garage and the retail parking structure,
the new total cost for all of retail parking comes out to be approximately $2.03 million. Other
than the smaller garage, we believe the retail design of TOD Lexington is adequate and
acceptable for the Wasson Way project.
Transit Oriented Development at Lexington Page 15
CVE 5002 Integrated Design II – Spring 2014
Crossing at Montgomery Rd. Background
While analyzing the transit oriented development at Lexington, the proposed light rail
track and bike path would cross over Montgomery Rd. as shown in Figure 7. The purpose for
this design at the intersection of Wasson Way and Montgomery Rd was to provide safe crossing
for light rail transits, cars, and pedestrians/bicyclists. Safety of the pedestrians would play an
important role on how the actual railroad and pedestrian crossing is design in the area. The
design of the light rail track crossing would include all the standard specification that is in a
railroad crossing such warning systems and pavement markings. As for the pedestrian crosswalk,
this path is located directly next to the light rail track and intersect a busy road. Therefore,
special precaution would need to be taken into account to give fair warning to all path users. Two
methods of design for pedestrian/bicyclist crossing over Montgomery Rd are analyzed in the
following: 1) Raised crosswalk and 2) Pedestrian/Bicyclist Bridge. During the analysis of the
two options, the method of crossing was to determine based on the criteria of most efficient, cost
effective, and safest way to cross over Montgomery Rd.
Figure 7: Crossing at Montgomery Road
Source: Google Maps
Transit Oriented Development at Lexington Page 16
CVE 5002 Integrated Design II – Spring 2014
First, the average daily traffic must be determined for the four lanes on Montgomery Rd
as shown in Figure 8. According to ODOT, the average annual daily traffic count on
Montgomery Rd was 9,730. These traffic counts would need to be considered in the proposed
design because the roads needs to be long enough to accommodate all cars during light rail
crossing to prevent a buildup in traffic. The proposed track will cross over Montgomery Rd
which have 4 lanes, 2 lanes going each direction. Also, the width of the road is approximately 50
feet wide which will play an important role in designing a pedestrian/bicyclist bridge. Many
studies, observations, and data analysis would need to be completed before any decision on the
design type of crossing is determined.
Figure 8: Montgomery Road Intersection
Light Rail Crossing
The most important part of designing a railroad crossing is to provide warning signals to
all drivers when the light rail is crossing Montgomery Rd. According to Federal Highway
Administration, the component that goes into a safe railroad crossing includes the following:
traffic study, traffic control devices, roadway, drivers, train, and pedestrians. General warning
systems such as gates, flashers, and stop lines would be used to warn all drivers at the
intersection when the light rail is active as shown in Figure 9. Another technique that would be
incorporated into the design is to have pavement markings on the road which provides additional
and advance warning for vehicle crossing.
Source: Google Maps
Transit Oriented Development at Lexington Page 17
CVE 5002 Integrated Design II – Spring 2014
Design
Despite having all warning systems around the intersection, there are more design criteria
to investigate such as geometry of the roadway. The geometry features includes stop lines and
sight distance. According to The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), which
is a document issued by the Federal Highway Administration of the United States Department of
Transportation (USDOT), specifies the location where vehicles must stop prior to the track. The
stop line is approximately 2.4m or 8 ft from the gate, stop line must be at least 2 ft thick, and 15
ft from the center of the track as shown in Figure 10. The pavement markings must be painted on
both direction of Montgomery Rd. The dimension of the area in one direction of the road that is
to be painted is 25ft in width by 40ft in length. A typical railroad pavement markings is shown in
Figure 11. As for the design of the railroad gates, Appendix C will show the cross-section of
railroad gate and the dimension required for installing a railroad gate according to Railroad-
Highway Grade Crossing Handbook - Revised Second Edition August 2007. In this design of the
intersection, according to MUTCD, incorporating the design of traffic signs, road surface
markings, and gates with flashers would be enough to warn all drivers on both sides of the road
of an incoming light rail transit.
Figure 9: Typical Gate with Flashers and Crossing sign
Source: Google Images
Transit Oriented Development at Lexington Page 18
CVE 5002 Integrated Design II – Spring 2014
Figure 10: Example of Pavement Markings at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings
Another criterion in this design is the visibility of the drivers also known as sight
distance. Sight distance is important for drivers because they would need to be able to inspect
both sides of the track up to a certain distance before crossing to insure it is safe to cross.
According to Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook, the minimum sight distance
required for a train moving at 20 mph is 175ft or 50m. This is very important because if the gates
and signals fail, then the drivers can then look both ways to make sure the path is clear to cross.
The design of the railroad crossing and improvement of the area is all based around the driver.
The information from the driver’s point of view will provide engineers with the proper design at
an intersection. Although, there are many systems around a crossing to warn all drivers, it is also
the drivers’ responsibility for obeying traffic control devices, traffic laws, and rules of the road.
Cost Analysis
The design of this railroad crossing includes gates (including electronic devices) with an
arm length of 24 ft., 3 LED light heads on each arm, railroad crossing signs and a double flasher
light. Also, pavement markings will be incorporated into this design to notify drivers to cross the
track with precaution and to stop at a safe distance when a light rail is coming through.
According to The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, the average cost of upgrading a crossing
is approximately $200,000. As for the pavement marking on the roads, the paint cost $0.60 per
SQ. foot. With an area of 2000 Sq. (25 ft x 40 ft per direction) foot on four lanes on Montgomery
Source: MUTCD
Figure 11: Typical Railroad Pavement Markings
Source: MUTCD
Transit Oriented Development at Lexington Page 19
CVE 5002 Integrated Design II – Spring 2014
Road that will cost $1,200 for paint. Therefore, the total cost for implementing a railroad
crossing at the Montgomery Road intersection is $201,200 (Does Not Include Construction
Cost).
Option 1: Raised Crosswalk
Even though the railroad design allows for cars to safely cross over the tracks, there is
still the safety of pedestrians/bikers that cross over Montgomery Road when the light rail transit
is not going through the intersection. The first method of design for pedestrian/bicyclist crossing
is implement a typical pedestrian crossing as shown in Figure 12. The cross path along Wasson
Way which crosses over the road would include a type of crossing surface and warning systems.
The crossing surface would be a typical bike path made of asphalt. This asphalt path would be on
the Wasson Way trail and continue on through the intersection. If the light rail transit is not
going through, then there would need to be a pedestrian walkway sign that would alert the
drivers to yield to pedestrians. The walkway sign would also include a 10 feet by 50 feet
pavement markings to where pedestrian crossing would be. An important factor to this design
would be to implement a slower speed limit sign around the intersection to provide safe crossing
for drivers and pedestrians. Currently, the speed limit is 30 mph.
As for the pedestrian crossing over the intersection at the same time as the light rail
transit, this should not be an issue if there is a proper separation or a barricade between the
Figure 12: Example of Pedestrian Crossing
Source: Google Images Source: Google Images
Transit Oriented Development at Lexington Page 20
CVE 5002 Integrated Design II – Spring 2014
transit and the pedestrian and all cars would be stopped by the gates during train crossing. Since
vehicles have to stop at the stop line which is 15 ft from the center track, this design would
increase the length of stopping distance to 20 ft. This will allow a raised crosswalk with a width
up to 13 ft to fit between the barricaded gate and the stop line. In order to make this design
acceptable, the gate cannot be a typical railroad gate. This gate will need to have fencing on it
and should be strong enough to hold a person’s fall.
Figure 13: Example of Gate with Fencing
Cost Analysis
The design of the pedestrian/bicyclist crossing consist of 2 pedestrian crossing signs (1
on each direction), raised asphalt path, and pavement markings. Pavement markings for the
raised crosswalk will be incorporated into this design to notify drivers to slow down and yield to
pedestrian crossing. According to TAPCO – Traffic & Parking Control CO., INC, each
pedestrian crossing sign with LEDs will cost $1,600 per sign. As for the pavement marking on
the roads, pedestrian crosswalk markings will cost $0.60 per SQ. foot for four lanes on
Montgomery Road. With a crosswalk area of 500 Sq. foot (10 ft x 50 ft) that requires paint will
cost $300. Therefore, option 1 for crossing over Montgomery Road will have a total cost of
$3,500 (Does Not Include Construction Cost).
Source: Google Images
Transit Oriented Development at Lexington Page 21
CVE 5002 Integrated Design II – Spring 2014
Option 2: Pedestrian/Bicyclist Overpass Bridge
The second alternative to providing a safe and efficient crossing for pedestrians and
bicyclists is the use of a bridge or overpass. If a bridge is constructed over Montgomery Road it
would have to clear Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) standards and regulations. The
bridge would also have to accommodate ADA standards for those with disabilities using the trail,
causing for a lengthy sloped entrance to the bridge. Through various searches of
current/proposed bridges we found that prices can range greatly depending on bridge
specifications. Listed in the case studies are 2 distinct examples to give a rough idea of the
bridge cost depending on the material used. Alternative 2 would not be ideal or feasible
according to ADA standards and the limited space provided around Montgomery Avenue.
University Station currently occupies the majority of area need for the entrance/exit ramps to the
overpass. Because bridges must be at heights to accommodate traffic such as semi-trucks the
slopes for ADA and bicyclists would need to be at a 1:12 ratio maximum; providing the bridge
runs 12 feet for every rise in 1 foot. To help illustrate the diagram provided below in Figure 14
shows the designated slope ratio for ADA compliance standards.
Figure 14 – ADA Slope and Rise of Ramp
Source: www.ada-compliance.com
Transit Oriented Development at Lexington Page 22
CVE 5002 Integrated Design II – Spring 2014
The Federal Highway Administration specifies a minimum bridge height of 14 – 16 feet
for all roads. The bridge would be 15 feet high and a 1:12 ratio for the access ramp. Including
the distance crossing Montgomery Road and the 2 ramps make the bridge a minimum length of
430 feet.
Case Studies 1. Bike/Peds. Bridge Crossing Hwy 29 in Weston, Wisconsin
On the other end of the cost scale is the most basic form of a bridge to accommodate
bikes and pedestrians. The bridge built in 2006 in small town of Wisconsin called Weston cost
approximately $2.5M (Appendix D), and crosses over four lanes of traffic as comparable to
Montgomery Rd. The bridge measures at approximately 500 feet long from start to end of each
ramp. The only difference between Hwy 29 and Montgomery Rd is the large grassy median
Hwy 29 has separating 2-way traffic. The bridge is built to standards set forth with a minimum
width of 10 feet and a 17 ft clearance for traffic to pass underneath. Slopes on either side of the
entrances of the bridge are handicap accessible. The bridge was built for the same purpose as
ours would be built for in providing safe crossing for both pedestrians and bicyclists over a busy
high volume road; the bridge also connects surrounding neighborhoods to one another through
its multi-use trail. The village of Weston conducted an investigation using multiple alternatives
before deciding they’d build the bridge at Birch Street to cross the highway. Hwy 29 may be
bigger and more rural, but is still one of the busiest highways in that area of Wisconsin. The
town of Weston, Wisconsin has since established more projects to build bridges across Hwy 29
in other locations for the same purpose as the one mentioned above. The bridge’s original design
was prefabricated steel and would’ve only cost a mere $720,000 but redesigned forcing the
$2.5M. The actual cost of construction for the bridge was around $1.9M. A cost break down
table can be seen below in Figure 15.
Transit Oriented Development at Lexington Page 23
CVE 5002 Integrated Design II – Spring 2014
Figure 15 – Hwy 29 Bridge Cost Breakdown
Source: www.westonwisconsin.org
The figure breaks down the cost more in depth to see the amount spent on everything for
the bridge. The bridge built over the highway is very simplistic giving us a rough idea how
much would need to be spent for a bridge similar in size over Montgomery Road. As another
precaution we reached out to a bridge construction company to see how much a lower end bridge
would cost for this project.
2. Bike/PED Bridge Quote from GatorBridge™
GatorDock™ & GatorBridge™ is an aluminum bridge manufacturer who designs and
fabricates multi-use aluminum bridges across the nation. This bridge came in at much lower
prices and for a lesser quality than a precast or prefabricated steel bridge. The quote given was
for the cost of the material and shipping for the pre-fabricated aluminum bridge. The final cost
for two 75 foot spans was an estimated $103,500; including 90k for the bridge material and
13.5k for the shipping from Columbus, OH. The bridge consists of two 8 feet wide by 75 feet
long Cascade aluminum bridges with ADA standard grab bars and 42 inch railing (Appendix E).
Transit Oriented Development at Lexington Page 24
CVE 5002 Integrated Design II – Spring 2014
The total cost to amount for our estimated bridge length to accommodate FHWA and ADA
guidelines results from multiplying the $103,500 by 6 to include 6 of the 75 foot spans. The
final cost is less than half the case study aforementioned in Weston, Wisconsin and approximates
a total of $621,000. This cost would change with larger spans, but more support would be
needed as these are simply aluminum bridges. Cost for a suggested middle support system,
expansion joint material, and end abutments of the bridge were left out of the quote as well as
cost for labor to install the bridge. GatorBridge is strictly a manufacturer and does not estimate
labor and additional resource cost. The quote may lack additional numbers for a better estimate
but only a ballpark estimate was needed for the overpass alternative. The Birch Street/Hwy 29
bridge also included over $100k for a lighting system. They suggested GatorBridge’s designed
for the bridge to handle a live load of 90 psf. The quote was a great place to start to give a rough
idea of both a high end bridge and low end less expensive bridge to accommodate
bike/pedestrian traffic. The shop drawings for both the footings and overall bridge design can be
found in the Appendix at the end of this report. All information was provided by Rick Dyc from
GatorDock™ & GatorBridge™.
Summary of Final Design
The Montgomery Road crossing for TOD Lexington was broken down into two possible
alternatives: a bridge/overpass, and a raised crosswalk. The LRT crossing was established at the
beginning to be a standard railroad crossing to put in place a system that already works well and
safely across the nation. The final design to accommodate pedestrian/bicycle traffic was
determined to be a raised crosswalk with all the essential safety features of a standard raised
crossing. Markings and flashers will be present on Montgomery; the speed limit can be reduced
from the existing 35 mph to ensure drivers have more time to notice the crosswalk. To ensure
the safety of trail users not using LRT there must be a barrier in place to prevent the cross over
into the rail from the pedestrian/bike path. The design for the barrier is to use two standard gates
with fencing that will come down during the crossing of the light rail train. These fenced gates
will be set 8 feet from the centerline of the rail. An example of the gate can be shown above in
Figure 13. These gates will separate pedestrians and bicycles from the light rail while
maintaining a safe distance in case an accident was to occur around the barrier. According to the
Transit Oriented Development at Lexington Page 25
CVE 5002 Integrated Design II – Spring 2014
FHWA 15 feet is minimum distance between the centerline of the gates to the rail. This distance
will be established between the gates as well for the pedestrian trail gate barrier. The gates will
sit back 15 feet from the edge of the rail. Constructed adjacent to the gates will be the trail and
raised crosswalk, then another 10 feet to the gate that prevent traffic from crossing. The stop bar
for traffic is set at a minimum of 8 feet from the centerline of the gate foundation.
Alternative 2 was deemed unfeasible provided there is limited space to construct ADA
compliant ramps to reach minimum heights of 15 feet for the overpass. Ramp lengths of 180 feet
long on either side would need to be constructed to reach that minimum height. University
Station is already under construction and incorporating a space for the trail. This space will
work nicely for the trail, but would not accommodate a ramp with potential space blockage for
an overpass. The blockage would conflict with the 175 ft minimum sight distance needed for
drivers in case the gates were to malfunction during a light rail crossing. The real estate group
and planner have their own plans for the other side of Montgomery Road; existing vacant retail
shops and parking lots will soon be a new strip mall-like lot. The area to the south of the trail
will include multiple shops and restaurants and a multi-use surface parking lot with a garage on
the side. These designs in place would also dissipate any chances of adding a 180 foot ramp into
the area that could potentially take away money and prospects from the trail if constructed.
Figure 16 below shows a drawing of the final design for the Montgomery Road crossing. The
picture is hand drawn with dimensions to help illustrate the design. The picture was not drawn to
scale.
Transit Oriented Development at Lexington Page 26
CVE 5002 Integrated Design II – Spring 2014
Figure 16 – Final Design Drawing for Pedestrian Crossing
Source: Hand drawn – Tyler Book NOT DRAWN TO SCALE
Transit Oriented Development at Lexington Page 27
CVE 5002 Integrated Design II – Spring 2014
Pedestrian Railroad Light Rail Crossing and Access Points Problem Statement
There are currently no plans to interact the surrounding residents to the proposed
Lexington TOD, which will hurt the growth of the community. By implementing a safe
pedestrian crossing over the Wasson Way trail, community members will have easy access to
path and entertainment.
Background
The proposed route of Wasson Way travels through some very interesting and unique
parts of northern Cincinnati. At each section of the rail line there are different aspects that are
unique to that specific area. The area under investigation throughout this report is one of the
most unique areas along the entire route. Surrounding the path almost completely are retail
shops, housing, restaurants and similar venues. With the addition all of this new entertainment
and shopping, there needs to be a way for people to access everything without feeling cut-off by
the light rail tracks. There are currently no proposed plans to interact the surrounding
community to the retail area adjacent to Wasson Way at the Lexington TOD, but this report
looks into proposal of placing an at grade pedestrian crossing over the path. Implementing a safe
crossing over the light rail track would be greatly beneficial for the entire area, allowing the
community to see more growth. This will draw in more community members, while providing a
safe environment, allowing them to enjoy area.
Design
Many types of pedestrian crossings were researched as a possibility including tunnels,
bridges and at grade sidewalks. Each scenario brought different things to the table, some good
some bad. However, it was determined that only a grade crossing would be feasible. These
crossings can be very diverse depending on the circumstances and what the hazards are. There
are different ways they can be constructed including being formed and poured with concrete,
made with metal panels, or precast beforehand. Across the country there have been many
applications where each of these have been used. This report proposes using a precast concrete
Transit Oriented Development at Lexington Page 28
CVE 5002 Integrated Design II – Spring 2014
section, mad readily available by companies nationwide. One specific company, Oldcastle
Precast, was chosen as the best option for several reasons. Oldcastle Precast specializes in
precast components as the name would suggest, and therefore is very customizable. One of their
trademark subsidiaries is StarTrack Railroad Products, which specializes in long lasting,
maintenance free light rail and freight track lines. These products are extremely customizable,
coming in all different shapes, colors, sizes and materials. Each of surfaces can even be altered
with textures to match the surrounding surfaces of nearby pervious pavement. Their products
meet ADA requirements and have anti-skid surfaces, which would be ideal near a bike path.
Each piece can also be made to meet any type of curvature in the track.
There are several types of StarTrack crossings provided by the company, each with their
own purposes and applications. The standard StarTrack component is designed for light rail and
commuter applications. This type of crossing fits the needs of the Wasson Way crossing. This
crossing is designed to meet American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-way
Association Standards (AREMA) for Cooper E-80 loading (Standard Crossing). Using a larger
or stronger component would only be a waste of money as the loading would most likely never
exceed this design strength. This loading is the live load from a typical train, roughly 8 kips per
linear foot. This standard crossing is 8’ wide x 14” thick and comes in 3 lengths: 5’, 7.5’, and
17.5’ (Standard Crossing). Because this specific crossing would be used exclusively for
pedestrians and bicyclists, the length of the crossing would only need to be 7.5’ to safely and
comfortably accommodate all users. A detail depicting this 8’ x 7.5’ x 14” crossing can be seen
in Figure 17 below. Other typical cross section details can be seen in Figure 18. Each of these
details show different subgrade materials such as asphalt o structural fill. The exact
requirements can not be made untli the type of rail car is determined.
Transit Oriented Development at Lexington Page 29
CVE 5002 Integrated Design II – Spring 2014
Figure 17: Standard Detail of Crossing at Track
Source: http://www.startrackrail.com/Content/pdfs/StarTrackBrochure.pdf
All custom railroad or light rail pieces supplied by StarTrack and Oldcastle have very
little maintance and installation issues. These specific crossings couldn’t be easier to take care
of, which adds to the overall appeal of using these crossings. Each custom piece has 4 embedded
hook anchors for easy manueverability and install. While these precast models are custom, there
re also adherent to federal standards. Federal accessibility guidelines state that crossings need to
be a minimum of 48” and this crossing goes far beyond that (ADA Standards). As seen in
Figure 17 above the top surface of this precast piece has a non-skid coating, which also conforms
to ADA guidelines, although it is not a necessity rather a suggested extra. Each crossing,
Transit Oriented Development at Lexington Page 30
CVE 5002 Integrated Design II – Spring 2014
especially those near residential neighborhoods such as the one proposed in this report, is
required to have running slopes and cross slopes no greater than 5% and 2% respectively per
ADA standards (Pedestrian Rail-Crossings). Contractors need to work together with engineers
on the construction documents to ensure all federal and local requirements and guidelines are
met.
Figure: 18: Section View of Subgrades
Source: http://www.startrackrail.com/Content/pdfs/StarTrack_7.5x8.pdf
Transit Oriented Development at Lexington Page 31
CVE 5002 Integrated Design II – Spring 2014
Safety and Signage
No matter what the project is or where it is located, safety is the most important factor for
all aspects of the job. For Wasson Way safety is not only a major concern, but by the most
important one. Because of the nature of the project, pedestrians will be put into dangerous
environments along the entirety of the trail and safety precautions and signs are paramount to
mitigating the hazards throughout. Any crossing across this path needs to be examined
thoroughly due to the light rail presence. The Federal Railway Administration (FDA) states that
human factor caused accidents are down a whopping 38% since 2008 (Safety Fact Sheet). This
can be partly attributed to the guidelines set in place as well the precautionary measures set forth
by the engineers and urban planners.
There are treatments that are can be put in place to mitigate risk, both passive and active.
They are highly suggested for light rail transits with speeds in excess of 15 mph or on tracks with
low visibility (Pedestrian Rail-Crossings). Passive treatments are those that do not have any
moving parts, audible devices or flashing visuals. Some of the most prevalent passive treatments
are pavement markings and signs such as “Stop Here” and “Look Both Ways”. These can be
found at almost any crossing whether it be light rail, railroad or street. Another measure
commonly seen are tactile surfaces, which provide a physical warning to be cautious especially
to those visually impaired. Some of the more elaborate passive treatments include swing gates
and channel barriers. These devices create physical barriers that prevent and/or discourage
pedestrians from hurrying across the intersection in dangerous or unauthorized ways. They often
force the pedestrian to face the oncoming traffic before entering the crossing to ensure their
safety. Active treatments on the other hand are the opposite of passive, they have moving parts
with audible or visual effects to alert pedestrians of danger. A couple simple and common
passive treatments seen at many crossings are flashing signs or lights as well as audible devices.
These are safety devices that appeal to your senses and alert you immediately of oncoming trains
or danger and are intended to alert pedestrians 20-30 seconds before a train (Metaxatos). Typical
signs at light rail crossings may be a red/green light, walk/don’t walk, or a light up train that
signifies oncoming trains. A more extreme example is the use of a lever arm and crossbuck sign.
This safety measure is useful when rail lines cross a street or busy intersection. This lever arm
Transit Oriented Development at Lexington Page 32
CVE 5002 Integrated Design II – Spring 2014
mechanism has a long arm that extends across the street or pathway that inhibits people from
crossing while a train or light rail is passing. Examples of both passive and active treatments can
found below.
Passive Treatments
Figure 19: Typical Track Crossing
Figure 21: Passive Signals
Figure 22: Track Crossing Gate
Figure 20: Example of Channeling/ Barrier
Source: Google Images
Transit Oriented Development at Lexington Page 33
CVE 5002 Integrated Design II – Spring 2014
Active Treatments
While each treatment is beneficial is its own way, not all are deemed needed or feasible
for each specific crossing. For this particular crossing of Wasson Way it is not necessary to have
all of the above safety measures. Having too many precautions will be too confusing and can
actually make the area more dangerous. This proposed crossing does not intersect any major
roads and the proposed track only has 1 rail line, therefore lever arms and crossing lights are not
needed. Swing gates and barriers have also been deemed unreasonable. Due to the nature of the
crossing being over a bike path where many pedestrians will be using bicycles and similar means
on transportation, having gates creates an unfriendly path for those on wheels.
For this specific crossing it has been determined that the use of channeling is most
desirable. It not only slows down pedestrians causing them to look both ways before crossing,
but allows those on wheels to be able to maneuver around without having to hold open gates
while trying to pull their bikes or likes of through. In addition to channeling, it is suggested that
the use of tactile surfaces and stationary signs be put in place. These devices provide another
Figure 23 Figure 24
Source: Google Images
Transit Oriented Development at Lexington Page 34
CVE 5002 Integrated Design II – Spring 2014
medium to everyone to take notice of the dangerous area they are about to enter. Fencing along
the path should also be incorporated. Fencing keeps people from crossing the tracks at
undesignated areas, which create a highly dangerous situation. This is crucial for Wasson Way
given its location, specifically at Lexington TOD due to the surrounding neighborhoods.
With all of the signs and barriers associated with the crossing, the cost can add up
quickly. A cost estimate breakdown of all of the parts included in the pedestrian crossing itself is
described below. This estimate does not include the labor cost of installing each piece of
material. A depiction incorporating the final design can also be seen below in Figure xxx.
Standard Crossing = $1200 x 7.5 lf = $9000 “Look Both Ways” sign = 4 x $15
Tactile Surface = 2 x $150 Channeling Gates = 6 x $250
Total Cost Estimate ~ $9500 + labor
Figure 25: Final Design of Pedestrian Crossing over Track (Source: Graham Russell)
**NOT DRAWN TO SCALE**
Transit Oriented Development at Lexington Page 35
CVE 5002 Integrated Design II – Spring 2014
Project Benefits and Barriers
The benefits of this project include many positive social benefits. The Wasson Way
project, especially the TOD Lexington area, will provide the area with new retail stores for
shopping and increase the economy for the area. Also, the parking lot structures will provide the
new retail "shoppers" for the area with places to park their vehicle. This certain project will also
provide the area with new recreational opportunities for the social area by providing a bike trail
for active residents. The new Montgomery Road crossing overpass will provide the "bikers"
with a safe and scenic raised cross walk to bike on. Finally, the new access points will give the
public easy and convenient ways to get to the bike path and retail shopping stores. The group
believes that all of these benefits will provide the public with a more active, social, and happier
atmosphere.
There a few barriers of this project that will prohibit the proposed design from being
realized. A major barrier of this project is money and finance. First, the existing rail line has to
be bought from the railroad company before the project is implemented. Second, the proposed
design of the TOD Lexington cost an extraordinary amount of money (~$2.24 million) and the
Wasson Way organization has to raise that's money on its own. Another major barrier is crime
in the area. Currently, this area is not the safest and the above average crime rate in the area
could hinder the project's completion and life hood. Finally, another barrier to this project is the
economic return of the project. The light rail transit, the parking garages, and the money
returned on this project is slim to the total project's cost. Thus, there will be a deficit when the
project is finished and this may affect the taxing on the community creating a negative social
attitude towards the finished project.
Transit Oriented Development at Lexington Page 36
CVE 5002 Integrated Design II – Spring 2014
Report Conclusion
After in depth analysis of the TOD Lexington design, the total cost the entire project is
approximately $2.24 million. This cost is broken down by the parking cost being roughly $2.03
million (implementing one 5-story garage instead of two garages), the Montgomery Road
overpass being approximately $0.2 million, and the access point design being roughly $0.01
million (excludes labor costs). As stated in the parking lot section, the group has chosen to not
implement two garages since the smaller garage (50 ft. by 50 ft.) is infeasible not cost effective.
After looking two different alternatives in the Montgomery Road crossing design, the raised
crosswalk design was more feasible, and cost effective. A major conclusion in the access point
design was that it would be more feasible to install pre-cast crossing beforehand instead of
forming it on site. Additionally, active safety measures were found to be unnecessary in the
access point design. In terms of political issues, the group believes this is non-applicable. In the
terms of social issues, the group believes there will be a positive social response in the
connection of Wasson Way to the Lexington TOD area. The group believes that these
conclusions are cost efficient, safe, and that they will provide the Wasson Way trail with a
sufficient transit oriented development.
Transit Oriented Development at Lexington Page 37
CVE 5002 Integrated Design II – Spring 2014
Appendix A: Responsibilities
Project Responsibilities Abstract…………………………………………………….…………………………….. Kyle Yu Table of Contents...…………………………………………….………………………… Kyle Yu Introduction……………………………………….………………………….……….... Alex Jung Retail Parking…………………………………….………….……..... Alex Jung & Austin Becker Crossing at Montgomery Rd……………...…………………………….… Kyle Yu & Tyler Book Pedestrian Railroad Light Rail Crossing and Access Points…………………...….Graham Russell Project Benefits and Barriers………………………………………………………..Austin Becker Conclusion…………………..…………………………………. Austin Becker & Graham Russell ***Per conversation with Dr. Miller on March 11th, 2014, the TOD at Lexington group discussed the following issues:
• Feasibility of a full design of a parking garage • Feasibility of a pedestrian overpass bridge • Lump sum cost of all 3 major proposed designs
Transit Oriented Development at Lexington Page 38
CVE 5002 Integrated Design II – Spring 2014
Appendix B: Parking Garage Cost Analysis Calculations
Parkin
g Gara
ge Cos
t Analsy
isRef
erence
Size of
Garage
Flo
or Area
(sq.ft)
Numb
er of flo
orsTot
al Squa
re Foot
age (Sq
. ft)Cos
t /sq. f
t ($)T
otal Co
st ($)
Additio
nal Co
mment
s
N/A
55 ft x
55 ft
3025
4121
008.5
91103
951.10
105 ft x
105 ft
11025
4441
0031.
311138
0815.1
0
Case S
tudies
Refer
ence
Size of
Garage
Flo
or Area
(sq.ft)
Numb
er of flo
orsTot
al Squa
re Foot
age (Sq
. ft)Cos
t /sq. f
t ($)T
otal Co
st ($)
Additon
al Com
ments
N/A290
005
145000
45652
5000.0
0Ree
d Cons
tructio
n Data
Sample
55 ft x
55 ft
3025
4121
0045
544500
.00105
ft x 105
ft110
254
44100
45198
4500.0
0217
ft x 300
ft651
006
390600
38.5
150381
00Cam
pus Gre
en Cas
e Stud
y55 f
t x 55 f
t302
54
12100
38.5
465850
105 ft x
105 ft
11025
4441
0038.
5169
7850
32.508
15Size
of Gar
age
Floor A
rea (sq
.ft)Nu
mber o
f floors
Total S
quare F
ootage
(Sq. ft)
Cost /s
q. ft ($
)Tota
l Cost (
$)Add
itonal C
omme
nts55 f
t x 55 f
t302
54
12100
32.5
393250
105 ft x
105 ft
11025
4441
0032.
5143
3250
Sample
Trial f
or just
one g
arage,
More
Expens
ive, bu
t effici
ent an
d logica
l
21250
4850
0060.
35512
9750.0
0
Total (
$)252
9000
148476
6.2
215752
3.594
Total (
$)
Total (
$)
Final C
ost for
Two G
arages
Averag
e Cost
/Sq. ft
($)
105 ft x
105 ft
11025
5551
2539.
13875
Reed C
onstru
ction D
ata: 20
13 US
Nation
al Aver
age
(Preca
st)
Total
216370
0Cam
pus Gre
en Stu
dy
2011 R
S Mean
s: Prec
ast
Concre
te Gara
ge
RS Me
ans Re
ferenc
e
Inexpe
nsive,
but no
t effici
ent
215752
3.59
Final C
ostTot
al Cost
($)182
6500
SOURCE: Austin Becker – RS MEANS
Transit Oriented Development at Lexington Page 39
CVE 5002 Integrated Design II – Spring 2014
Appendix C: Typical Clearances for Flashing Light Signals with Automatic Gates
Source: MUTCD
Transit Oriented Development at Lexington Page 40
CVE 5002 Integrated Design II – Spring 2014
Appendix D: Bike/Peds. Bridge Crossing Hwy 29 in Weston,
Wisconsin (Source: http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/localgov/docs/bike-ped-projectlist.pdf)
Transit Oriented Development at Lexington Page 41
CVE 5002 Integrated Design II – Spring 2014
Appendix E: CASCADE Pedestrian Bridge (Source: http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/localgov/docs/bike-ped-projectlist.pdf)
Transit Oriented Development at Lexington Page 42
CVE 5002 Integrated Design II – Spring 2014
References
1. ADA. “Design Standards.” ADA.gov United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division.
Web. 6 April, 2014. <http://www.ada.gov/2010ADAstandards_index.htm>.
2. ADA. “Ramps.” ADA – Compliance. Web. 12 April 2014. <http://www.ada-
compliance.com/ada-compliance/ada-ramp>.
3. “ADA Signs and Products.” ADA Sign Depot. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Apr. 2014.
4. "ADA Standards of Accessibility Design." Department of Justice, Sept. 2010. Web. Apr. 2014.
5. “Asphalt Parking Lot Guide”. Plantmix Asphalt Industry of Kentucky. 2011.
http://paiky.org/wp-content/iploads/2012/06/Parking_Lot_Guide>
6. “Black and Green”. National Asphalt Pavement Association.2009. <http://www.asp
altpavement.org/images/stories/sustainability_report_2009.pdf
7. Construction Cost Estimates for Parking Garage in Cincinnati, Ohio. Reed Construction Data,
2014. Web. 1 Apr. 2014. <http://www.reedconstructiondata.com/rsmeans/
models/garage/ohio/cincinnati/>.
8. Dyc, Rick. “Bridge Quote – Email.” GatorDock™ & GatorBridge™. Email. 10 April 2014.
9. Federal Highway Administration. “Vertical Clearance.” U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration. Web. 6 April 2014. <http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/geo
metric/pubs/mitigationstrategies/chapter3/3_verticalclearance.htm>.
10. "Garage, Parking." RSMeans Square Foot Costs. 32nd ed. 2011. 136-37. Print.
11. Irwin, Don. Safety Criteria for Light Rail Pedestrian Crossings. Tech. Tri-County Metropolitan
Transportation District of Oregon, n.d. Web. 1 Apr. 2014.
12. “Jerith Black 3-Rail Style Single Aluminum Walk Gate.” HayNeedle. M.p., n.d Web. 14 Apr.
2014.
13. Jones, Todd. “StarTrack Customer Service Interview.” Telephone Interview. 16 Apr. 2014.
14. Koutz, Kendal, and UC Parking Services. Web. 28 Mar. 2014.
15. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. N.p., 21 Oct. 2013. Web. 13 Feb. 2014.
<http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/index.htm>.
16. Metaxatos, Paul, and P.S. Sriraj. Advancing Pedestrian Safety at Rail Grade Crossings. Tech.
Urban Transportation Center, Nov. 2012. Web. 3 Apr. 2014.
17. “Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements”. Cincinnati Zoning Code 1425-19. <http://librar
y.municode.com/index.aspex?clientId=19996>
Transit Oriented Development at Lexington Page 43
CVE 5002 Integrated Design II – Spring 2014
18. Ohio Department of Transportation. N.p., 2009. Web. 12 Feb. 2014.
<http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Planning/TechServ/traffic/Traffic_Survey_Reports
/2009_Reports/HAM09.PDF>.
19. Pavement Markings: Other. N.p., Jan. 2008. Web. 15 Apr. 2014.
<http://www.mhd.state.ma.us/safetytoolbox/downloads/PavementMarkings.pdf>.
20. Pedestrian-Rail Crossings in California. Tech. California Public Utilities Commission, May
2008. Web. 2 Apr. 2014.
21. “Pedestrian Sign.” Road Traffic Signs. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Apr. 2014.
22. "Safety Fact Sheet." Federal Railroad Administration. US Department of Transportation, Feb.
2012. Web. Apr. 2014. <http://www.fra.dot.gov/Elib/Details/L04936>.
23. "Standard Crossing." Standard Crossing. StarTrack Railroad Products, n.d. Web. 11 Apr. 2014.
24. "Ten Year Accident/Incident Overview." Office of Safety Analysis. Federal Railroad
Administration, n.d. Web. 2 Apr. 2014. <http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafety
/publicsite/Query/tenyr2a.aspx>.
25. The Public Utilities Comission of Ohio. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Apr. 2014. <http://www.puco.
ohio.gov/puco/index.cfm/consumer-information/consumer-topics/ohio39s-rail-grade-
crossing-programs/>.
26. The Village of Weston. “Birch St/Hwy 29 Pedestrian Bridge.” The Village of Weston, Wisconsin.
Web. 8 April 2014. <http://www.westonwisconsin.org/faq.aspx?TID=23>.
27. The Village of Weston. “Birch St/Hwy 29 Pedestrian Bridge – Talking Points Memo.” Village of
Weston. Web 8 April 2014. <http://westonwi.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/385>.
28. U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. N.p., Aug. 2007. Web. 12
Feb. 2014. <http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/xings/com_roaduser/07010/>.
29. Walker, Carl. "Parking Structure Design Guidelines." : 1-48. Web. 3 Apr. 2014. <http://are320
k.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/parkingstructuredesign.pdf>.
30. Wisconsin DOT. “Bicycle-Pedestrian Projects Funded by WisDOT (1993-2013).” Wisconsin
Department of Transportation. Web. 6 April 2014. <http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov
/localgov/docs/bike-ped-projectlist.pdf>.