DOCSLIB.ORG

Engineering Development Manual

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Engineering Development Manual 2019 ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT MANUAL Public Works Department City of Shoreline 17500 Midvale Avenue North Shoreline, WA 98133 Page intentionally left blank. Engineering Development Manual ii Contents Contents .................................................................................................................... iii FOREWORD ............................................................................................................... xi DIVISION 1 – ADMINISTRATION .............................................................................. 1 Introduction ............................................................................................. 2 1.1. General Authority ......................................................................................................................... 2 1.2. Vesting .......................................................................................................................................... 3 1.3. Revising the EDM ........................................................................................................................ 3 1.4. Copy of the EDM .......................................................................................................................... 3 1.5. Contact Information ...................................................................................................................... 3 Permits ................................................................................................... 6 2.1. Site Development Permit ............................................................................................................. 6 2.2. Right-of-Way Permits ................................................................................................................... 7 2.3. Public Utilities .............................................................................................................................. 10 2.4. Non-City Agencies...................................................................................................................... 10 Permit Process ..................................................................................... 12 3.1. Permit Process ........................................................................................................................... 12 3.2. Pre-application Meeting ............................................................................................................. 14 3.3. Neighborhood Meeting ............................................................................................................... 15 3.4. Permit Review ............................................................................................................................ 15 3.5. Plan Approval ............................................................................................................................. 15 3.6. Plan Revisions ............................................................................................................................ 15 3.7. Independent Review .................................................................................................................. 15 3.8. Permit Issuance .......................................................................................................................... 16 3.9. Pre-construction Meeting ........................................................................................................... 16 3.10. Permit Inspections ...................................................................................................................... 16 3.11. Final Project Approval ................................................................................................................ 16 3.12. Permit Timing and Expiration ..................................................................................................... 17 3.13. Notification (Right-of-way) .......................................................................................................... 18 3.14. Franchises, Electric and Communication Facilities................................................................... 18 Permit Submittals .................................................................................. 20 Engineering Development Manual iii 4.1. Design Professionals ................................................................................................................. 20 4.2. Plans and Specifications ............................................................................................................ 21 4.3. Survey ......................................................................................................................................... 21 4.4. Site Assessment ......................................................................................................................... 22 4.5. Surface Water Report ................................................................................................................ 22 4.6. Geotechnical Report .................................................................................................................. 22 4.7. Transportation Impact Analysis ................................................................................................. 23 4.8. Traffic Control Plan ..................................................................................................................... 23 4.9. Declaration of Covenant ............................................................................................................ 23 4.10. Easements .................................................................................................................................. 24 4.11. Tracts .......................................................................................................................................... 24 4.12. Dewatering Plan ......................................................................................................................... 25 4.13. Financial Guarantee ................................................................................................................... 25 4.14. Insurance .................................................................................................................................... 26 Permit Fees .......................................................................................... 28 5.1. Fee-in-lieu of Frontage Improvements ...................................................................................... 28 5.2. Independent Review .................................................................................................................. 28 5.3. Revisions to Issued Permits ....................................................................................................... 28 5.4. Transportation Impact Fees ....................................................................................................... 28 DIVISION 2 – RIGHT-OF-WAY ................................................................................. 31 Standards ............................................................................................. 32 6.1. Companion Documents ............................................................................................................. 32 6.2. Deviation from Engineering Standards...................................................................................... 34 General Requirements .......................................................................... 36 7.1. Americans with Disabilities Act .................................................................................................. 36 7.2. Low Impact Development .......................................................................................................... 36 7.3. Maintenance ............................................................................................................................... 36 7.4. Street Tree Removal/Pruning .................................................................................................... 36 7.5. Connectivity ................................................................................................................................ 37 7.6. Underground Utilities .................................................................................................................. 37 7.7. Frontage Improvements ............................................................................................................. 37 7.8. Dedication of Right-of-Way ........................................................................................................ 38 7.9. Illumination .................................................................................................................................. 39 7.10. Curbing ....................................................................................................................................... 41 Engineering Development Manual iv 7.11. Pavement Cut Moratorium ......................................................................................................... 41 Transportation Impact Analysis .............................................................. 42 Street Classification .............................................................................. 44 9.1. Arterial Streets ............................................................................................................................ 44
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Download Toolkit for a School Route Review
    PRINTER-FRIENDLY VERSION DEWCH I NI GERDDED I’R CYMRU YS GOL Toolkit for a School Route Review A step by step guide to running a School Route Review Help us create a walking nation We are Living Streets Cymru, part of the UK charity for everyday walking and the people behind the Walk to School Campaign. We’ve got a big ambition: that every child that can, walks to school. Useful links Run your own School Route Review livingstreets.org.uk/who-we-are/wales Advertise your event – download a poster to put up at school. Invite parents, Councillors and local residents – download template letters in Welsh or English. Living Streets - Walk to School livingstreets.org.uk/what-we-do/walk-to-school Living Streets - WOW Walking Challenge livingstreets.org.uk/what-we-do/projects/wow Living Streets - Park and Stride Guide livingstreets.org.uk/media/2035/park-and-stride-print.pdf Active Travel Act wales.gov.uk/active-travel Sustrans - Active Journeys sustrans.org.uk/active-journeys-school-wales The Daily Mile thedailymile.co.uk/ Keep Wales Tidy keepwalestidy.cymru If you would like this toolkit or further information by email please contact [email protected] Contents What is a School Route Review? 2 Why carry out a School Route Review? 3 Step 1 - getting ready to review 5 Classroom ideas Lesson plan Step 2 - walking the walk 11 Carrying out the School Route Review Step 3 - reporting the review 14 Case studies 16 Malpas Court Primary School - Newport St Mellons Church in Wales Primary School - Cardiff Nant-y-Parc Primary School - Caerphilly School Route Review Checklist 22 Poster 26 1 What is a School Route Review? A School Route Review is a great way of discovering some of the things that might stop families walking to school.
    [Show full text]
  • Shared Streets and Alleyways – White Paper
    City of Ashland, Ashland Transportation System Plan Shared Streets and Alleyways – White Paper To: Jim Olson, City of Ashland Cc: Project Management Team From: Adrian Witte and Drew Meisel, Alta Planning + Design Date: February 2, 2011 Re: Task 7.1.O White Paper: “Shared Streets and Alleyways” - DRAFT Direction to the Planning Commission and Transportation Commission Five sets of white papers are being produced to present information on tools, opportunities, and potential strategies that could help Ashland become a nationwide leader as a green transportation community. Each white paper will present general information regarding a topic and then provide ideas on where and how that tool, strategy, and/or policy could be used within Ashland. You will have the opportunity to review the content of each white paper and share your thoughts, concerns, questions, and ideas in a joint Planning Commission/Transportation Commission meeting. Based on discussions at the meeting, the material in the white paper will be: 1) Revised and incorporated into the alternatives analysis for the draft TSP; or 2) Eliminated from consideration and excluded from the alternatives analysis. The overall intent of the white paper series is to explore opportunities and discuss the many possibilities for Ashland. Shared Streets Introduction Shared Streets aim to provide a better balance of the needs of all road users to improve safety, comfort, and livability. They are similar to European concepts such as the Dutch based ‘Woonerf’ and the United Kingdom’s ‘Home Zone’, with some distinct differences. This balance is accomplished through integration rather than segregation of users. By eschewing many of the traditional roadway treatments such as curbs, signs, and pavement markings, the distinction between modes is blurred.
    [Show full text]
  • To Stop the Use of Property Intentionally
    Glossary of Planning Terms Access Management: Access picking fruit, feeding animals, or staying at management is the process of balancing a Bed & Breakfast on a farm. the competing needs of motor vehicle mobility and land access. Access Americans with Disabilities Act management provides access to land (ADA): A comprehensive, federal civil development while simultaneously rights law that prohibits discrimination on preserving the safe and efficient flow of the basis of disabilities in employment, traffic, including bicyclists and state and local government programs and pedestrians, on the roadway system. activities, public accommodations, transportation, and telecommunications. Accessory Dwelling Unit: An independent dwelling unit that is clearly Apartment: A dwelling unit used subordinate to a single-family detached exclusively for lease or rent as a residence. dwelling, as distinguished from a duplex or other two-family dwelling. It may be Archeological Resources: Places that internal or external to the main unit. have the potential to yield information about the past through study of the Adaptive Reuse: Rehabilitation or landscape and remains of previous human renovation of existing building(s) or intervention on the landscape. structures for any use(s) other than the present use(s). Architectural and Cultural Heritage: Places, people, objects, stories, traditions, Affordable Dwelling Unit: Refers to and ideas from and about the past that units required under the Affordable relate to us today. Dwelling Unit Ordinance, units are committed for a 30-year term as affordable Architectural and Historic Surveys: to households with incomes at 60 percent Studies of the properties within a or less of the area median income.
    [Show full text]
  • Bird Rock1-4
    LA JOLLA HERMOSA La Jolla Hermosa Boulevard BACKGROUND This historic trolley car street has an unusual width for present day residential homes. Block lengths are very long in several areas, adding to potential for speeding. 6' 6’ 10’ 4' 10’ 6' 6' Residents are concerned with speed (31 mph in most ROW 50 Feet areas), and the wide crossing distances for pedestrians. Typical Cross Section Some spillover commercial and work center parking Bike Lanes affects residents. Refuge Islands V PHASE ONE Tree Wells Maintain full The Walkable Communities proposed plan includes access to all bike lanes. The southern portion can provide diagonal driveways parking on one or both sides of the roadway. Traffic volumes here are very low, and a narrower lane street section will create a quiet, peaceful atmosphere. Bike lanes should be dropped in this section, allowing more maneuvering width for bicyclists. A mini-roundabout is also recommended for Forward and La Jolla Hermosa for this phase. A mini-roundabout on La Jolla Hermosa and Colima can also be considered for this phase. Bike lanes should be 6.0 feet wide and marked with an outer stripe, 8.0 inches wide. Parking lanes should be marked with 4.0 inch stripes, and be 6.0 to 7.0 feet wide. Travel lanes should be narrowed to about 10.0 feet. This reduced visual width to travel lanes can reduce speeding by many drivers. It is common to see reductions of speed of 7.0 miles per hour. PHASE TWO OR THREE Refuge islands (short medians) and increased landscaping can be added in Phase Two.
    [Show full text]
  • Design Guidelines
    PEDESTRIAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN DESIGN GUIDELINES Downtown Aberdeen 6 CHAPTER OUTLINE: OVERVIEW OVERVIEW These recommended guidelines originate from and adhere to national design standards as defined by the American SIDEWALKS AND Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO), WALKWAYS the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Federal Highway GREENWAY TRAIL Administration (FHWA) Pedestrian Facilities Users Guide, the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), and the MARKED CROSSWALKS NCDOT. Another major source of information in this chapter is CURB RAMPS the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center, found online at http://www.walkinginfo.org. Should the national standards be RAISED OR LOWERED revised in the future and result in discrepancies with this chapter, MEDIANS the national standards should prevail for all design decisions. A ADVANCE STOP BARS qualified engineer or landscape architect should be consulted for the most up to date and accurate cost estimates. BULB-OUTS PEDESTRIAN OVERPASS/ The sections below serve as an inventory of pedestrian UNDERPASS design elements/treatments and provide guidelines for their ROUNDABOUTS development. These treatments and design guidelines are important because they represent minimum standards for TRAFFIC SIGNALS creating a pedestrian-friendly, safe, accessible community. The PEDESTRIAN SIGNALS guidelines are not, however, a substitute for a more thorough evaluation by a landscape architect or engineer upon LANDSCAPING implementation of facility improvements. Some improvements may also require cooperation with the NCDOT for specific ROADWAY LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS design solutions. STREET FURNITURE AND WALKING ENVIRONMENT TRANSIT STOP TREATMENTS The Pedestrian and Bicyle Information Center, AASHTO, PEDESTRIAN SIGNS AND the MUTCD, nationally WAYFINDING recognized trail standards, BRIDGES and other sources have all informed the content of this TRAFFIC CALMING chapter.
    [Show full text]
  • Access Restrictions: Liveable Streets, Play
    L E P T S HORT POLICY BRIEFS - 3 J u n e 2 0 1 9 CITIZENS AND NEIGHBOURHOODS vulnerable users, especially children. To reduce the impact they have on children’s ACCESS RESTRICTIONS: LIVEABLE STREETS, health, several boroughs have been PLAY STREETS AND SCHOOL STREETS implementing school streets, including Lewisham, Islington and Camden. EVIDENCE Hackney has published a guide for local authorities who wish to explore the - One in three children in the UK are growing possibility of implementing school streets. up in cities with unsafe levels of particulate Boroughs and UK public authorities can pollution (Unicef UK, 2017). implement the measure by using - Exposure to air pollution may be harming all experimental traffic orders, which allow organs of the body (Schraufnagel & al., parking authorities to modify traffic or 2019). parking regulations for an 18-months period - 63% of teachers would support a ban on requiring no prior public consultation: motor vehicles outside schools (Sustrans, consultation takes place alongside the trial, 2019). allowing for citizen feedback on the actual - Nearly a third of children ages 2-15 are effects of the scheme. There may be some overweight or obese (UK National public backlash, but results tend to be government, Childhood obesity action plan, positive in the long run, with high levels of 2017). acceptance once the scheme is in place. This was the case in the pilot led by CHALLENGE S Croydon. Changing the way streets are used to Expanding on school streets and in prioritise pedestrians and vulnerable partnership with Public Health England, road users by restricting motorised thirteen boroughs are experimenting with vehicle access to some streets.
    [Show full text]
  • Active Transportation Plan
    Active Transportation Plan nd 2 Edition Adopted by the Fridley Council February 11, 2020 Engineering Department Community Development Department February 2020 1 Introduction The City of Fridley is committed to providing residents with safe opportunities for walking, biking, and other non-automobile transportation. The Active Transportation Plan (the Plan) guides the City’s planning and construction of infrastructure needed for a well-maintained sidewalk and trail system. The 1st edition of the Plan was written in 2013 based on the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan. In the following years, many of the Plan’s original goals have been achieved and a new 2040 Comprehensive Plan has been developed. This 2nd edition reflects the progress that has been made as well as the new Comprehensive Plan goals related to Active Transportation. Purpose This plan’s purpose is to guide the City’s installation and maintenance of infrastructure needed to achieve mobility equity and support opportunities for active transportation (walking, biking, assisted mobility, transit, etc.). It is well documented that increased walking and biking improves health and quality of life. Additionally, improved active transportation infrastructure can increase a community’s desirability, encourage higher spending at commercial establishments, and reduce crime. Shifting travel from vehicles to transit, bikes, and walkways also decreases the greenhouse gas emissions associated with transportation, which is the largest contributor of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States according to the Environmental Protection Agency. In a city such as Fridley, where residents face many barriers to movement due to high- volume roadways and railways, a well-developed trail and sidewalk network is particularly important to increasing sense of place and community connection.
    [Show full text]
  • School Street Closures and Traffic Displacement Project: a Literature Review with Semi-Structured Interviews 2
    School Street Closures and Traffic Displacement Project: A Literature Review with semi-structured interviews 2 Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. 4 Purpose, background and approach ....................................................................................................... 5 Purpose ........................................................................................................................................... 5 Street closures – definition, development and context ................................................................... 5 Definition of road safety for the purposes of this review ................................................................ 6 Overall review inclusion criteria ...................................................................................................... 7 Study design .................................................................................................................................... 7 Dates ............................................................................................................................................... 7 Geography ....................................................................................................................................... 7 Search terms ................................................................................................................................... 7 Supplementation of
    [Show full text]
  • Implementing Living Streets: Ideas and Opportunities for the City and County of Denver
    US EPA Smart Growth Implementation Assistance IImmpplleemmeennttiinngg LLiivviinngg SSttrreeeettss:: IIddeeaass aanndd OOppppoorrttuunniittiieess ffoorr tthhee CCiittyy aanndd CCoouunnttyy ooff DDeennvveerr April 2009 ~45 m ~Ride .- Project Contacts ICF Contact: Amy Doll EPA Contact: Adhir Kackar Denver Contact: Crissy Fanganello ICF International Smart Growth Program Department. of Public Works 9300 Lee Highway, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW (MC 1807T) 201 W. Colfax Avenue, Dept. 509 Fairfax, VA 22031 Washington, DC 20460 Denver, CO 80202 Tel (703) 934‐ 3244 Tel (202) 566‐2846 Tel (720) 865‐3026 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Consultant Team Dena Belzer Jim Charlier Niko Letunic Strategic Economics Charlier Associates, Inc. Eisen|Letunic 2991 Shattuck Avenue, #203 2511 31st Street 304 ½ Lily Street Berkeley, CA 94705 Boulder, Colorado 80301 San Francisco, CA 94102 Tel (510) 647‐5291 Tel (303) 543‐7277 Tel (415) 552.2468 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Tim Van Meter Rick Williams VMWP Denver VMWP San Francisco 1529 Market Street 18 De Boom Street Denver, CO 80202 San Francisco, CA 94107 Tel (303) 298‐1480 Tel (415) 974‐5352 [email protected] [email protected] Table of Contents Chapters Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................................................………………. iii 1. Introduction ...............................................................................................................................................................................………………
    [Show full text]
  • Pedsafe Chapter 6
    Case Studies Chapter 6 PHOTO BY DAN BURDEN Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System | Case Studies 115 The 49 engineering, education, and enforcement coun- termeasures are described in Chapter 5. Included in this chapter are case studies that illustrate these treatments and/or programs as implemented in a state or munici- pality. Examples are included from 20 States and the countries of Canada and Switzerland. Provided on the following pages is a list of the 71 case studies by coun- termeasure group. A more detailed matrix showing the case studies by specific countermeasure is included in Appendix B on pages 302-303. Each case study includes a description of the problem that was addressed, relevant background information, a description of the implemented solution, and any quan- titative results from evaluation studies or qualitative assessments. Also included for each study is a point of contact in the event that further information is desired. Please note that in some cases, the specific individual listed may have left the position or agency.There should still be someone at the municipal or state agency that is familiar with the project and can provide any supple- mental information. Not all traffic control devices (TCDs) in the case stud- ies comply with the MUTCD.FHWA does not endorse the use of non-compliant TCDs except under experi- mentation, which must be approved by the FHWA Office of Transportation Operations. 116 Case Studies | Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System itle Case Study Number
    [Show full text]
  • Getting Around V ISION: Our Safe, Connected System Is Economically and Environmentally Sustainable for All Modes of Transportation
    CHAPTER 6 GETTING AROUND V ISION: Our safe, connected system is economically and environmentally sustainable for all modes of transportation. February 25, 2019 97 RED WING 2040 COMMUNITY PLAN on identifying, planning for, and guiding future year To review the full Red Wing 2040 Transportation Plan Introduction transportation decisions and improvements. The visit the Online 2040 Document Library. People get around and through Red Wing in different planning process views transportation in terms of the ways, and the term “Getting Around” in the Red Wing movement of people and goods, not just vehicles. Community Engagement 2040 Community Plan encompasses all the ways While the process analyzes specific transportation A summary of input collected from the community is people get from one place to another: by foot, bike, modes, it stresses the interrelationships between included on the following two pages. car, truck, bus, boat, or wheelchair. In Red Wing, modes and facilitates the integration of the various we’ve made great steps to ensure in the future that transportation components into a system that all people are able to get where they are going safely efficiently and cost-effectively meets the mobility and efficiently. needs of the area’s citizens, businesses, industries and Over the last few years, major projects like our the traveling public. Highway 61-Main Street renovation, Levee Road The three primary objectives of the 2040 and Trail project, West Avenue reconstruction, and Transportation Plan are: Twin Bluff Road roundabout have added safety and aesthetic beauty to our town, and we look forward to » To provide a guidance document for city staff continuing that tradition.
    [Show full text]
  • Home Zone Concepts and New Jersey
    Alan M. Voorhees Transportation Center Home Zone Concepts and New Jersey prepared by: Alan M. Voorhees Transportation Center New Jersey Bicycle and Pedestrian Resource Center Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy prepared for: New Jersey Department of Transportation funded by: Federal Highway Administration November 2004 Home Zone Concepts and New Jersey Abstract This report probes the potential for the application of the Dutch concept of woonerf, or Home Zone, for the United States, and particularly New Jersey. In order to start a discussion about the feasibility of developing Home Zones in New Jersey, a historic overview of Home Zone development and an explanation of the concept’s design principles are presented first. Woonerf is a very adaptable concept, and approaches to utilizing it vary from one country to another. This is illustrated in case studies from the Netherlands, Germany, and the United Kingdom. However, they all highlight the fact that when Home Zones are used as part of a broader urban strategy to calm traffic, they result in increased livability and safety. In the United States, there are no Home Zones equal to the European model; but, there are domestic examples with goals and objectives in keeping with the Home Zone concept. This paper describes chronologically organized case studies from Asheville, North Carolina; Boulder, Colorado; West Palm Beach, Florida; and Kalamazoo, Michigan. They exemplify the fact that woonerf-like design in the United States has worked well and is becoming accepted. These successful applications illustrate the benefits of a Home Zone: · Reduced driving speeds and traffic volume · Increased safety, public health, neighborhood aesthetics, and social activity · Increased property desirability · Encouragement for nonmotorized traffic as a transportation mode · Enhanced mobility for vulnerable groups.
    [Show full text]