DOCSLIB.ORG

Waterfront Esplanade Master Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Waterfront Esplanade Master Plan FALL 2011 SHERMAN CREEK Waterfront Esplanade Master Plan 1 Prepared for New York City Economic Development Corporation TABLE OF Prepared by WXY architecture + urban design CONTENTS Consultant Team Civitas, Inc. eDesign Dynamics Halcrow GRB Environmental Services, Inc. Philip Habib & Associates, Planners and Engineers FOREWORD 5 VJ Associates ETM Associates, L.L.C. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6 This plan was funded jointly by the New York State Department BACKGROUND 8 of State, Division of Coastal Resources, with funds provided under Title 11 of the Environmental Protection Fund, and by SITE 10 the New York City Industrial Development Agency. 1. Context 2. Issues 3. Opportunities COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PROCESS 18 VISION 20 GUIDING PRINCIPLES 22 1. Continuity 2. Community-Centric Programs 3. Coexistence 4. Sustainability CONCEPTUAL DESIGN 28 1. Academy Street 2. Pebble Beach Park 3. Riverwalk 4. North Cove 5. Upland Connections and Streets MAKING IT HAPPEN 44 1. Implementation Strategy 2. Maintenance Strategy Printed on Mohawk® Options: 100% post consumer recycled fibers and manufactured with Green-e certified wind power. Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and Green Seal™ Certified. FOREWORD Dear Friend, On behalf of the many stakeholders who were involved in the development of this document, it is a great pleasure to present the Sherman Creek Waterfront Esplanade Master Plan. The document is the result of a two-year planning process during which New York City Economic Development Corporation worked closely with the New York City Department of Parks & Recreation, other City and State agencies, and a number of interested parties, including Manhattan Community Board 12, local elected officials, neighborhood residents, not-for-profit organizations, businesses, and property owners. The master plan follows other City efforts to chart the future of this part of Upper Manhattan, dating back to 2003. One top priority identified through those earlier efforts was the reclamantion of the Harlem River waterfront, between Sherman Creek Inlet and West 208th Street, with new parks and open spaces for recreation. The City’s open space investments in the area since 2003 have begun to address that concern. The Sherman Creek Waterfront Esplanade Master Plan represents yet another step forward. The proposed esplanade would enhance the neighborhood’s access to its waterfront and complement and support the active commercial, institutional, and industrial uses that are such an important part of this area. This master plan is thus aligned with the City-wide goal of achieving publicly accessible waterfronts, as set forth in the Waterfront Vision and Enhancement Strategy (WAVES) introduced by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and City Council Speaker Christine Quinn earlier this year. Funding must now be secured to advance this master plan and realize its vision of a revitalized Harlem River Waterfront in Sherman Creek. We look forward to the continued commitment and coordinated effort of all interested parties to move this plan into implementation. Sincerely, Seth W. Pinsky President, NYCEDC EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Sherman Creek Waterfront Esplanade Master Plan (the “Master Plan”) establishes a planning and design framework for an open space amenity (the “Esplanade”) to revitalize a section of the Harlem River waterfront that has been derelict and inaccessible to the public for decades. The Esplanade would connect certain City investments along the water’s edge, bring new recreational uses to the area, restore the natural habitat, and provide the upland neighborhoods with safe, unimpeded access to their waterfront. The Esplanade would complement and support the industrial, commercial, and institutional uses that are an integral part of the area’s vibrant fabric. The active participation of local stakeholders during a 20-month outreach process was critically important to complete the plan. Their desires and concerns shaped the vision of the Esplanade and its accompanying conceptual design. The Master Plan recommends a phased development of the Esplanade, given a reality of limited resources, the cost of developing, operating, and maintaining each Esplanade section, and the challenges and opportunities particular to each such section. Phase 1 would include the Esplanade sections at Academy Street, the North Cove, and Pebble Beach Park, which could be developed as successive sub-phases. Phase 2 would include the Esplanade section between West 204th Street and the area under the University Heights Bridge. The Esplanade at Academy Street has the most potential to become the first project of the Master Plan, provided there were funding in place to develop, operate, and maintain the project. This Esplanade section would be constructed on City-owned property that could be made available for the project in the nearer term. In addition, this investment would yield a richer variety of programs than other Esplanade sections as well as significant neighborhood connections. The remaining Fig. 1: View of the proposed Sherman Creek waterfront esplanade Esplanade sections would follow, building on the momentum and success of this project. The Master Plan considers potential management models for the Esplanade. The success of any model (i.e. the adequate stewardship of the Esplanade in the long term) will depend, ultimately, on the effective deployment of resources to the operation and maintenance of the Esplanade. When realized, the Esplanade will enable uninterrupted pedestrian access to and along the water’s edge, furthering a key goal of the City’s Waterfront Vision and Enhancement Strategy (WAVES). The Esplanade will also restore Sherman Creek’s role as a significant natural habitat and a hub for water- based recreation. More importantly, the Esplanade will improve quality of life in the neighborhood, embracing its existing vitality and complementing it with much-needed recreational opportunities. 6 7 BACKGROUND The impetus for this Master Plan grew out of a City–driven planning study of the section of Inwood traditionally known as Sherman Creek (Fig. 2) in 2003–2004. THE The study identified several community recommendations regarding waterfront BRONX access, parks, and recreation. New York City Economic Development Corporation (“NYCEDC”) and the New York City Department of Parks & Recreation (“NYCDPR”) have worked together over the past few years to implement some of those recommendations. Key achievements include: MANHATTAN • The clean-up of the upland area just south of the Sherman Creek Inlet and the Highbridge Park QUEENS creation of a pedestrian trail (the “Nature Trail”), in partnership with New York Restoration Project (“NYRP”), a local non-profit; and Swindler Cove in P.S.5 Ellen Lurie • The development of five parks (the “Street–End Parks”) at the Harlem River Sherman Creek Park nd th BROOKLYN ends of West 202 to West 206 Streets. 1 Sherman Creek Academy St. Monsignor During the 2003-2004 study, the local community recommended the creation Inlet Kett Playground of a riverside esplanade to reclaim Sherman Creek for public recreation after 201st St. decades of neglect. This Master Plan begins to address this request. 204th St. Fig. 2: Sherman Creek location In October 2009, NYCEDC began to explore the feasibility of creating an Esplanade that could connect the Street–End Parks and revitalize the riverfront. 1 The effort focused on the area (the “Esplanade Site”) bounded to the south by Sherman Creek Inlet, to the north by a tidal wetland at the end of West 208th Street (the “North Cove”), to the east by the Harlem River, and to the west by the Univ. Heights Bridge lots adjoining the riverfront (Fig. 3). North Cove The planning process began with an analysis of site constraints and Harlem River opportunities and continued with an ambitious community outreach effort. Numerous local stakeholders participated in discussions that shaped a shared, Fig. 3: Master Plan study area Esplanade Site 1 Subway Station Nature Trail Street-End Parks broad-based vision for an Esplanade. NYCEDC worked closely with several agencies throughout the planning process, including NYCDPR and the New York City Department of Transportation (“NYCDOT”). This Master Plan establishes a planning and design framework for a waterfront asset to achieve the following goals: • Connect the Street–End Parks; • Provide continuous waterfront access to the upland neighborhoods; • Complement and support the commercial, industrial, and institutional uses that give vibrancy to the area; • Restore the Esplanade Site’s natural habitat; and • Revitalize with new recreational uses a section of the Harlem River waterfront that has been inaccessible and derelict for decades. The plan articulates a shared vision of the Esplanade and presents a feasible conceptual design and complementary planning recommendations, their corresponding cost estimates, an implementation strategy, and a long-term maintenance strategy. 8 9 A (Opposite Page) SITE Fig 5: Neighborhood context Esplanade Site Blocks Street-End Parks Nature Trail 207th Street Yard 1. CONTEXT Baker Field SBS The Esplanade Site is relatively fl at, measures approximately W 208th Street Harlem River Harlem F 3,400 linear feet at the water’s edge, and has an approxi- o r t mate area of 3.84 acres. W a s Inwood Hill Park Isham h i Park n The Esplanade Site touches a planned network of green- g t o n W 207th Street ways and bike paths that would integrate the area’s low P 1 a r lying neighborhoods to its great open spaces, which are at k University Heights Bridge higher elevations (Fig. 4). Today, however, the network is Street-End Parks discontinuous at the waterfront, north of Dyckman Street. th There are two Broadway – 7 Avenue Local (1 line) subway W 206th Street stations relatively close to the Esplanade Site, at Dyckman th th Street and Nagle Avenue, and West 207 Street and 10 H R a th M . r C a l Avenue (Fig. 5). Further inland is an 8 Avenue (A/C line) n e h l m at e th t m a subway stop at Broadway and West 207 Street. In addition, R Hudson River Greenway n e i n Fort W v e t W 205th Street the BX12 select bus service connects the area to the Bronx.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ken Matthews: 1934-2019
    KEN MATTHEWS: 1934-2019 The world’s racewalking community was saddened in June 2019 to hear of the passing of Ken Matthews, Great Britain’s last surviving Olympic race walking Gold medallist. His death occurred on the evening of Sunday 2 nd June in Wrexham where he was a hospital in-patient. Kenneth ("Ken") Joseph Matthews was born on 21 June 1934 in Birmingham and started his race walk career as an 18- year-old, following in the footsteps of his father, Joe, who was a founding member of the now defunct Royal Sutton Coldfield Walking Club. Throughout his athletics career, Ken remained Midlands based, and remained a loyal member of Royal Sutton Coldfield Walking Club. An electrical maintenance engineer at a power station near his hometown of Sutton Coldfield, he became one of England's most successful ever racewalkers and dominated the world stage throughout the early 1960's. He won 17 national titles, as well as Olympic and European gold and, between 1964 to 1971 he held every British record from 5 miles to 2 hours, including a 10-mile world best of 69:40.6. Perhaps surprisingly, he did not dominate as a youngster and it was not until 1959, at age 25, that he won his first British titles – the RWA's 10 miles road title and the AAA's 2 miles and 7 miles track titles. 1 From then on, he was pretty much unbeatable in England, but the British race most people remember is, interestingly, a loss rather than a victory. In spectacle, excitement and sheer athleticism, the 1960 AAA 2 mile duel between Stan Vickers and Ken stands comparison with any of the great races in the history of the championships.
    [Show full text]
  • The ARTS Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Update
    “The ARTS Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Update envisions a seamless network of safe and inviting bicycling and walking paths, trails, and on-street facilities, between South Carolina, Georgia and the four member counties, that equitably supports economic development, active transportation, healthy lifestyles and improved quality of life for all citizens and visitors of the region.” Chapter V Two ision , Goa ls, and Objectives 1.1. Objective: Ensure that accommodations for Introduction bicyclists and pedestrians are provided on Based on goals and objectives of existing local all appropriate infrastructure projects where and regional planning documents, the input of pedestrians and bicyclists are permitted to the Project’s steering committee, the project travel. purpose, and relevant examples from around 1.2. Objective: Integrate bicycle and pedes- the country, vision, goals, and objectives are trian facilities in their projects, including, but listed below. The goals and objectives are not limited to, transit, development, public categorized by five of the six E’s associated works, infrastructure, and recreation facili- with bicycle- and walk-friendly community ties. designations. The five E’s are: Engineering, 1.3. Objective: Improve the level of service for Education, Encouragement, Enforcement, and existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities in Evaluation. Equity is considered a sixth E and the member counties. is interwoven within the goals and objectives 1.4. Objective: Increase the mileage of bicycle provided. Objectives 1.6, 1.7, and 3.3 give and pedestrian facilities by fifteen percent particular attention to equity, though it should in each of the region’s four counties within be addressed within the implementation of the next 5 years.
    [Show full text]
  • Temporary Traffic Control Zone Pedestrian Access Considerations
    Guidance Sheet - Temporary Traffic Control Zone Maintaining Pedestrian Pathways in TTC Zones If a project allows pedestrian access through part of the TTC zone, the pathway should be properly Pedestrian Access Considerations maintained. Note that tape, rope, or a plastic chain strung between devices is not detectable; their use does not comply with the design standards in the ADA or the MUTCD, and these items should not be used as a control for pedestrian movements. When implemented, the following recommendations should improve When developing temporary traffic control (TTC) plans, the importance of pedestrian access in and around safety and convenience: the work zone is often overlooked or underestimated. A basic requirement of work zone traffic control, as provided in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), is that the needs of pedestrians, v Inspect pathways regularly, and keep them clear of debris and well-maintained. including those with disabilities, must be addressed in the TTC process. Pedestrians should be provided with reasonably safe, convenient, and accessible paths that replicate as nearly as practical the most v Treat surfaces with non-slip materials for inclement weather. desirable characteristics of the existing sidewalks or footpaths. It is essential to recognize that pedestrians are reluctant to retrace their steps to a prior intersection for a crossing, or to add distance or out-of-the-way v Replace walkway surfaces with holes, cracks, or vertical separation. travel to a destination. This guidance sheet serves to remind TTC designers and construction personnel of v Inspect detour pathways regularly for adequacy of signal timing, signs, and potential traffic the importance of pedestrian access, to stress the need for pedestrian safety, and to offer suggestions that will improve the visibility of pedestrian access.
    [Show full text]
  • Pedestrian Crossings: Uncontrolled Locations
    Pedestrian Crossings: Uncontrolled Locations CENTER FOR TRANSPORTATION STUDIES Pedestrian Crossings: Uncontrolled Locations June 2014 Published By Minnesota Local Road Research Board (LRRB) Web: www.lrrb.org MnDOT Office of Maintenance MnDOT Research Services Section MS 330, 395 John Ireland Blvd. St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 Phone: 651-366-3780 Fax: 651-366-3789 E-mail: [email protected] Acknowledgements The financial and logistical support provided by the Minnesota Local DATA COLLECTION Road Research Board, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), and the Minnesota Local Technical Assistance Program John Hourdos and Stephen Zitzow, University of Minnesota (LTAP) at the Center for Transportation Studies (CTS), University of PRODUCTION Minnesota for this work is greatly acknowledged. Research, Development, and Writing: Bryan Nemeth, Ross Tillman, The procedures presented in this report were developed based on infor- Jeremy Melquist, and Ashley Hudson, Bolton & Menk, Inc. mation from previously published research studies and reports and newly collected field data. Editing: Christine Anderson, CTS The authors would also like to thank the following individuals and orga- Graphic Design: Abbey Kleinert and Cadie Wright Adikhary, CTS, and nizations for their contributions to this document. David Breiter, Bolton & Menk, Inc. TECHNICAL ADVISORY PANEL MEMBERS Tony Winiecki , Scott County Pete Lemke, Hennepin County Kate Miner, Carver County Tim Plath, City of Eagan Mitch Rasmussen, Scott County Jason Pieper, Hennepin County Mitch Bartelt, MnDOT This material was developed by Bolton & Menk, Inc., in coordination with the Minne- Melissa Barnes, MnDOT sota Local Road Research Board for use by practitioners. Under no circumstances shall Tim Mitchell, MnDOT this guidebook be sold by third parties for profit.
    [Show full text]
  • American Title a Sociation ~ ~
    OFFICIAL PUBLICATION AMERICAN TITLE A SOCIATION ~ ~ VOUJME XXXVI JUNE, 1957 NUMBER 6 TITLE NEWS Official Publication of THE AMERICAN TITLE ASSOCIATION 3608 Guardian Building-Detroit 26, Michigan Volume XXXVI June, 1957 Number 6 Table of Contents Introduction-The Federal Highway Program ......... ... ................ .. .................... 2 J. E. Sheridan Highway Laws Relating to Controlled Access Roads ..... .. ....... ........... 6 Norman A. Erbe Title Companies and the Expanded Right of Way Problems ...... ............. .. 39 , Daniel W. Rosencrans Arthur A. Anderson Samuel J. Some William A . Thuma INTRODUCTION The Federal Highway Program J. E. SHERIDAN We are extremely grateful to Nor­ veloped its planning sufficiently to man A. Erbe, Attorney General of the show to the satisfaction of the dis­ State of Iowa, for permission to re­ trict engineer the effect of the pro­ print his splendid brief embracing posed construction upon adjace.nt the highway laws of various states property, the treatment of access con­ relating to the control in access roads. trol in the area of Federal acquisi­ Mr. Erbe originally presented this m tion, and that appropriate arrange­ narrative form before the convention ments have been made for mainte­ of the Iowa Title Association in May nance and supervision over the land of this year. As is readily ascertain­ to be acquired and held in the name able, this is the result of a compre­ of the United States pending transfer hensive study of various laws touch· of title and jurisdiction to the State ing on the incidents of highway regu­ or the proper subdivision thereof." lations. Additionally, we are privi­ It is suggested that our members leged to carry the panel discussion bring this quoted portion to the at­ of the American Right of Way Asso­ tention of officers of the Highway ciation Convention held in Chicago, Department and the office of its legal May 16 and 17, dealing with "Title division, plus the Office of the Attor­ Companies and the Expanded Right ney General within the members' ju­ of Way Problems".
    [Show full text]
  • "2. Sidewalks". "Boston Complete Streets Design Guide."
    Sidewalk Zone Widths The width of the sidewalk contributes to the degree of When making decisions for how to allocate sidewalk space, comfort and enjoyment of walking along a street. Narrow the following principles should be used: sidewalks do not support lively pedestrian activity, and may create dangerous conditions where people walk in the Frontage Zone street. Typically, a five foot wide Pedestrian Zone supports > The Frontage Zone should be maximized to provide space two people walking side by side or two wheel chairs passing for cafés, plazas, and greenscape elements along build- each other. An eight foot wide Pedestrian Zone allows two ing facades wherever possible, but not at the expense of pairs of people to comfortably pass each other, and a ten reducing the Pedestrian Zone beyond the recommended foot or wider Pedestrian Zone can support high volumes of minimum widths. pedestrians. Pedestrian Zone Vibrant sidewalks bustling with pedestrian activity are not > The Pedestrian Zone should be clear of any obstructions only used for transportation, but for social walking, lingering, including utilities, traffic control devices, trees, and furniture. and people watching. Sidewalks, especially along Downtown When reconstructing sidewalks and relocating utilities, all Commercial, Downtown Mixed-Use, and Neighborhood Main utility access points and obstructions should be relocated Streets, should encourage social uses of the sidewalk realm outside of the Pedestrian Zone. by providing adequate widths. > While sidewalks do not need to be perfectly straight, the SIDEWALKS Pedestrian Zone should not weave back and forth in the When determining sidewalk zone widths, factors to consider right-of-way for no other reason than to introduce curves.
    [Show full text]
  • East Midtown Waterfront Esplanade Community Working Group June 24, 2013
    East Midtown Waterfront Esplanade Community Working Group June 24, 2013 East Midtown Waterfront Esplanade Project : Community Working Group 06/24/13 1 Agenda I. Project Overview a) Project Goals b) Project Considerations c) Progress Update II. Pre-Concept Design a) Design Inspiration b) Community Working Group 1 Meeting Summary c) Responding to Community Aspirations III. Breakout Session IV. Reporting Back V. Project Timeline and Next Steps East Midtown Waterfront Esplanade Project : Community Working Group 06/24/13 2 I Project Overview Site Context East Midtown Waterfront Esplanade Project : Community Working Group 06/24/13 4 Project Overview Contemplated by State legislation in July 2011: . Sponsored by State Assemblymember Brian Kavanagh and State Senator Liz Krueger (locally by Councilmember Daniel Garodnick) Project purpose: . Construct a continuous greenway from East 38th – 60th Street along the East River to create a critical transportation connection and to provide new open space to alleviate chronic shortage in the immediate area East Midtown Waterfront Esplanade Project : Community Working Group 06/24/13 5 Project Goals Provide Critical Transportation Route Achieve major transportation need and policy goal by filling critical gap . East Side of Manhattan lacks dedicated greenway for non-motorized transportation; creating one is a major public policy goal . Improve transportation options for thousands of pedestrians, joggers, rollerbladers and cyclists . Support alternative forms of transportation for New Yorkers and improve air quality Bicyclist on 2nd Ave & 38th Street NYC Bike Map in 2016 East Midtown Waterfront Esplanade Project : Community Working Group 06/24/13 7 Provide Waterfront Access & Open Space Provide waterfront access and new open space for densely populated East Midtown communities .
    [Show full text]
  • PLANNING and DESIGNING for PEDESTRIANS Table of Contents
    PLANNING AND DESIGNING FOR PEDESTRIANS Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary ................................................................1 1.1 Scope of Guidelines.............................................................................. 2 1.2 How the Pedestrian-Oriented Design Guidelines Can be Used........ 5 1.3 How to Use the Chapters and Who Should Use Them ...................... 6 2. Pedestrian Primer ...................................................................9 2.1 What is Pedestrian-Oriented Design? ................................................. 9 2.2 Link Between Land Use and Transportation Decisions .................. 10 2.3 Elements of a Walkable Environment ............................................... 11 2.4 What Kind of Street Do You Have and What Kind Do You Want?... 12 2.4.1 "Linear" and "Nodal" Structures .......................................................................... 12 2.4.2 Interconnected or Isolated Streets ....................................................................... 14 2.4.3 Street Rhythm......................................................................................................... 15 2.4.4 "Seams" and "Dividers" ........................................................................................ 16 3. Community Structure and Transportation Planning.........17 3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................... 17 3.2 Land Use Types and Organization..................................................... 18
    [Show full text]
  • Crossing Guard Manuals As References
    KANSAS GUIDELINES FOR SCHOOL CROSSING GUARDS PRODUCED BY THE KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (KDOT) AND THE KANSAS SCHOOL CROSSING GUARD COMMITTEE Summer 2006 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Sincere appreciation is expressed to the following persons who where instrumental in preparing this document, "Kansas Guidelines for School Crossing Guards." Kansas School Crossing Guard Committee David A. Church, Bureau Chief Bureau of Traffic Engineering Kansas Department of Transportation Cheryl Hendrixson, Traffic Engineer Bureau of Traffic Engineering Kansas Department of Transportation Larry E. Bluthardt, Supervisor School Bus Safety Education Unit Kansas Department of Education David Schwartz, Highway Safety Engineer Bureau of Traffic Safety Kansas Department of Transportation Paul Ahlenius, Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator Bureau of Transportation Planning Kansas Department of Transportation Vicky Johnson, Attorney IV Office of Chief Counsel Kansas Department of Transportation Adam Pritchard, Traffic Engineer Bureau of Traffic Engineering Kansas Department of Transportation Additional copies of these guidelines can be obtained by calling or writing: Kansas Department of Transportation Bureau of Traffic Engineering Eisenhower State Office Building 700 SW Harrison, 6th floor Topeka, KS 66603-3754 Telephone: 785-296-8593 FAX: 785 296-3619 Electronic copies are also available at the following website: http://www.ksdot.org/burTrafficEng/sztoolbox/default.asp 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Won't Crosswalks Make It Safer to Cross Streets?
    About Cross Walks: Won’t Crosswalks make it safer to cross streets? A crosswalk is that area of a roadway where pedestrians have the right of way. Crosswalks may be “marked” or “unmarked”. A “marked crosswalk” is any crosswalk which is delineated by painted markings placed on the pavement. All other crosswalk locations are therefore “unmarked”. Under the Arizona Law, crosswalks exist at all intersections, extending across the street from the corner curbs, or on other parts of the street designated as pedestrian crossing locations by the painted lines, unless signed otherwise. Arizona State law states the following in ARS 28-793. Crossing at other than crosswalk A. A pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles on the roadway. B. A pedestrian crossing a roadway at a point where a pedestrian tunnel or overhead pedestrian crossing has been provided shall yield the right-of- way to all vehicles on the roadway. C. Between adjacent intersections at which traffic control signals are in operation, pedestrians shall not cross at any place except in a marked crosswalk. Q: Are marked crosswalks safer than unmarked crosswalks? A: The City of San Diego conducted a study on the issue in the 1970's, and the report conclusions are often cited as the first comprehensive study of crosswalk safety. Investigators in San Diego observed over 400 intersections during a five-year study period. The results demonstrated that during the five- year period, 177 pedestrians were hit in 400 marked crosswalks compared to 31 pedestrians hit in 400 corresponding unmarked crosswalks.
    [Show full text]
  • Oakmont Phase 2 Selection Sheet
    Oakmont Phase 2 Selection Sheet Lot #: ________ Address: ______________________________ Brick: CHOOSE ONE (White Mortar $1,000 upgrade) Annandale Canal Street Stone Chase Forest Glen Charleston Nottingham Tudor Old Waverly Hardy Plank Color (Sherwin Williams) (CHOOSE ONE): _______________________________ Exterior Trim (Sherwin Williams) (CHOOSE ONE): _______________________________ Window Color (CHOOSE ONE): White Almond Front Door & Shutters (if applicable) (CHOOSE ONE): _______________________ Interior Wall Paint Colors: SHERWIN WILLIAMS FLAT LATEX PAINT (Please include name & number) (2 COLORS MAXIMUM) Color #1:___________________________________ Location:__________________________________ Color #2:___________________________________ Location: _________________________________ Interior Trim Color (CHOOSE ONE) : ______________________________ Gutters Color (CHOOSE ONE) : ______________________________ Bronze Tuxedo Gray Dark Gray Pearl Gray All selections are to be approved by builder and subject to change without notice due to supplier availability. Cabinet Style (CHOOSE ONE) : Bella Sedona Cabinet Color (CHOOSE ONE) : Bistro White White Fog Taupe Graphite Ebony Willow Cappucino Smoke Coffee Hardware (CHOOSE ONE PULL AND CHOOSE ONE KNOB): Knob Style #:__________________ Pull Style#:__________________ Plumbing Fixtures (CHOOSE ONE): Oil Rubbed Bronze Brushed Nickel Countertops (CHOOSE ONE GRANITE FOR THE KITCHEN & CHOOSE ONE GRANITE FOR ALL BATHROOMS): Colonial White Black Pearl Black Pearl Leathered Ash Blue White Shadow Stormy Night
    [Show full text]
  • Regional Freight Mobility Study, Phase II Report
    Corpus Christi – Yoakum Regional Freight Mobility Study, Phase II Report TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ES-1 SECTION 7 - ANALYSIS OF RAIL/ROADWAY INTERFACE ISSUES .....................................7-1 7.1 METHODOLOGY.......................................................................................................7-1 7.1.1 Crossing Selection Criteria.............................................................................7-1 7.1.2 Rail Occupancy ..............................................................................................7-4 7.1.3 Analysis of Results .........................................................................................7-8 7.2 GRADE CROSSING COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS...................................................7-10 7.2.1 Construction Cost Estimates ........................................................................7-10 7.2.2 Benefit-Cost Analysis ...................................................................................7-26 7.3 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................7-31 SECTION 8 - BOTTLENECK IMPROVEMENTS EVALUATION AND MODELING ..................8-1 8.1 PROJECTED TRAFFIC GROWTH ............................................................................8-1 8.1.1 2035 Train Forecasts......................................................................................8-1 8.1.2 Results............................................................................................................8-2
    [Show full text]