Transit Oriented Development at Lexington · Report Conclusion ... Typical Clearances for Flashing Light Signals with Automatic Gates ……… ... Transit Oriented Development at

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.



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



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



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.



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.



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



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)



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



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.



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

http://paiky.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Parking_Lot_Guide.pdf



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



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)



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.



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



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



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



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



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 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).


http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&docid=Xb5w-RW5eBVB6M&tbnid=kHmssM7D3FwvVM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuk-24754358&ei=6K5FU5XfF8blyQGntIGoDA&psig=AFQjCNGxFnzqCnZyyg8H5EX9-kltUW9auA&ust=1397162031381381



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



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.



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).

http://www.westonwisconsin.org/



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



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.



Figure 16 – Final Design Drawing for Pedestrian Crossing

Source: Hand drawn – Tyler Book NOT DRAWN TO SCALE



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



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.



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,



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



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



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




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




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**



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.



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.



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



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



Appendix C: Typical Clearances for Flashing Light Signals with Automatic Gates

Source: MUTCD

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&docid=6Jp_xlVRMwjwBM&tbnid=dXYG-CmMlJXPlM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fsafety.fhwa.dot.gov%2Fxings%2Fcom_roaduser%2F07010%2Fsec04b.htm&ei=PSlIU-H5NoLcyQGwvoDoDQ&bvm=bv.64542518,d.aWc&psig=AFQjCNHLZwMUCZVxXktpghVxgOPfRZza4Q&ust=1397324324651332



Appendix D: Bike/Peds. Bridge Crossing Hwy 29 in Weston,

Wisconsin (Source: http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/localgov/docs/bike-ped-projectlist.pdf)



Appendix E: CASCADE Pedestrian Bridge (Source: http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/localgov/docs/bike-ped-projectlist.pdf)



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>

http://paiky.org/wp-



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>.

Documents

Transit Oriented Development at Lexington · Report Conclusion ... Typical Clearances for Flashing Light Signals with Automatic Gates ……… ... Transit Oriented Development at